HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-05
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLANIA
IN RE ESTATE OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased
ORPHAN'S COURT DIVISION
No. 21-86-398
'"-~.;(~)\
-,
_.~-
~.-..._.
Answer of Robert M. Mumma, II to
Executrix Objections to Discovery Requests.
'; ~ j
G"
Preliminary Statement
Robert M. Mumma died April 12, 1986. Immediately after his death the Executrix
embarked upon a plan to confiscate all records pertaining to assets that he owned. They
also confiscated records and property of entities where Mr. Mumma had an interest, but
did not control, and entities he managed but had no ownership.
In 1921 Walter M. Mumma (WMM) founded Pennsylvania Supply Company. (PSC).
Shareholders included his wife Isabelle Hanhauser Mumma. Later Highspire Sand and
Gravel(HS&G) was formed. Both WMM and his wife Isabelle were partners. Walter died
in 1961.Beneficiaries of his Estate were his grand children. In 1962 Isabelle gifted her
interests in the entities to Robert M. Mumma, II (RMMII) for his sixteenth birthday
present.
It is clear that the primary dispute between the Estate and RMMII is the ownership of the
assets of PSC and HS&G.
The primary asset of HS&G was the Silver Springs Quarry located in Cumberland
County. This Quarry was contributed to the Estate of WMM by order of the Dauphin
County Orphans Court in 1961.
The primary assets of PSC were stock in two operating subsidiaries Pennsy Supply, Inc.
and Fiala Crushed Stone Corp. and real estate. The real estate included quarries and other
facilities operated by PSI.
In 1961 the Silver Springs Quarry, Fiala and Pennsy Supply, Inc. were combined into
Pennsy Supply Inc.(PSI), In 1963 the shareholders were the four grandchildren of WMM
and Kim Company. Kim Company received it's interest from an exchange of stock and
the contribution of the Silver Springs Quarry to PSI in 1961.
RMMII has concluded that the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, through the actions of the
executrix and their attorneys, has been used to convert his and possibly others interests in
PSI.
The discovery sought be RMMII seeks to determine whether the Estate has a legal
interest in certain assets it has claimed and if so whether it has properly administered
those assets.
The objections of the Estate are intended to prevent RMMII from determining how
RMM and now his estate gained control of the assets of WMM's estate, and how they
operated those assets.
If those assets are corporations, partnerships or tenancies in common RMMII has rights
to inspect the documents under the authority granted by the Business Corporation Law.
Where RMMII is a beneficiary of the Estate his right to inspect estate documents are
governed by the Pennsylvania Estate and Fiduciary Code.
Furthermore, contrary to the explicit instructions of the Court Order of October 10, 2005
the estate has not provided a detailed list of the documents and records that were
provided.( See attached affidavit of Daryl Hewitt)
As the Auditor has noted, it is "impossible to determine what has or has not been
provided, what is or is not objected to, or what is or is not existing." This situation has
not changed. It is impossible to determine if indeed the documents that were itemized in
their Response were in fact made available.
These specific documents were not included:
December 11, 1986 letter with draft agreement regarding Tenancy in Common
Agreement.
Letter of instruction to Art Klein regarding disclaimer
Minutes of Pennsylvania Supply Company, Kim Company.
Robert M. Mumma's stock certificates in Pennsylvania Supply Company, Kim
Company, Lebanon Rock Inc. and High-Spec, Inc.
Response to General Objections
1. RMMII objects to Morgan Lewis and Bockius making any representations
regarding the supposed filing of a disclaimer. Morgan Lewis advised RMMII on
this issue and should be precluded from representing the estate regarding this
matter. RMMII did not make such a filing. William Martson filed the disclaimer
and did so without any authority from RMMII. RMMII had no knowledge he filed
it. Furthermore, the document purportedly filed appears to be a faxed copy that
does not contain an original notarized signature.
2
2. RMMII was Vice President, director and a shareholder in various companies. The
Estate has confiscated these business records and refused inspection of these
records. RMMII has a right as a director officer and shareholder to review these
records and those of the subsidiaries and affiliated companies. They were part of a
controlled group of companies and as senior officer of Pennsylvania Supply
Company , the "parent" , the Business Corporation Law gives RMMII the right
and responsibility to inform himself of all corporate activities. PA BCL see, 1712
and 1732.
3. See 2. Additionally, and as an example, RMMII has never received an asset
listing used in the normal course of business and kept by the companies. He has
never received the checkbooks to review and compare to listed items. There is no
way to verify the representations in the various accountings by comparison
with original records. This is not overbroad or burdensome since the information
sought was prepared by the entities in the normal course of business. It belongs to
the entities and partners, tenants and shareholders. RMMII seeks to review these
documents that he has an ownership interest in. The Business Corporation Law
gives RMMIl the right and responsibility to inform himself of all corporate
activities.
4. See 3
5. Denied, they are commonplace requirements.
6. To the extent the estate has confiscated documents that are not estate property, but
property of other entities or persons RMMIl seeks to have those documents
released for inspection. See 3 .
7. RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically
Judge Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than
the normal right conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to
inspect all books and records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege
can not be asserted against a beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum,
459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A beneficiary's right to inspect books is
greater than the normal .,. due to ... independent property rights.""
8. This is truly ridiculous. RMMII is not requesting anything other than ability to
review and copy( at his expense) documents and records kept by the estate and
those confiscated from the corporations by the estate. See 3 and 7
Response to Supplemental Responses of Barbara MCK Mumma and Lisa M.
Morgan to Discovery Served by Robert M. Mumma, II
1. RMMII objects to Morgan Lewis and Bockius making any representations
regarding the supposed filing of a disclaimer. Morgan Lewis advised RMMII on
3
this issue and should be precluded from representing the estate regarding this
matter. RMMII did not make such a filing. William Martson filed the disclaimer
and did so without any authority from RMMI or RMMII having knowledge he
filed it. Furthermore the document purportedly filed appears to be a faxed copy
that does not contain an original notarized signature and was disavowed by
RMMII.
2. RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically
Judge Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than
the normal right conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to
inspect all books and records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege
can not be asserted against a beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum,
459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A beneficiary's right to inspect books is
greater than the normal... due to ... independent property rights." It is clear that
the estate has attempted to squeeze RMMII out of his inheritance from his
grandparents Walter and Isabelle. RMMII wants to review the legal advice paid
for by the estate. RMMII believes that the estate and it's legal advisors had full
knowledge of shareholder agreements that precluded sale of PSI or inclusion of
PSI stock in the Robert M.Mumma estate.
3. RMMII was Vice President, director and a shareholder in various companies. The
Estate has confiscated these business records and refused inspection of these
records. RMMII has a right as a director officer and shareholder to review these
records and those of the subsidiaries and affiliated companies. They were part of a
controlled group of companies and as senior officer of Pennsylvania Supply
Company , the "parent" the Business Corporation Law gives RMMII the right
and responsibility to inform himself of all corporate activities. Additionally, and
as an example, RMMII has never received an asset listing used in the normal
course of business and kept by the companies. He has never received the
checkbooks to review and compare to listed items. There is no way to verify the
representations in the various accountings by comparison with original records.
This is not overbroad or burdensome since the information sought was prepared
by the entities in the normal course of business. It belongs to the entities and
partners, tenants and shareholders. RMMII seeks to review these documents that
he has an ownership interest in. The Business Corporation Law gives RMMII the
right and responsibility to inform himself of all corporate activities
4. RMMII is challenging the inclusion in the Estate of Robert M. Mumma assets that
RMMII inherited from WMM. As an officer director and shareholder of PSC he
has a right to challenge the improper transfer of PSC assets in violation of specific
liquidation agreements signed by the executrix and other shareholders. Those
assets are not properly part of this estate. The requirements of the BCL and PEF
codes are authority for this.
5. See 2,3,4
6. To the extent the estate has confiscated documents that are not estate property, but
property of other entities or persons RMMII seeks to have those documents
released for inspection. See 3 .
4
7. This is truly ridiculous. RMMII is not requesting anything other than ability to
review and copy( at his expense) documents and records kept by the estate and
those confiscated from the corporations by the estate. See 3 and 7
Response to Responses for Discovery Requests
Items 1 -3
There should be no restriction on the ability of RMMII to review the documents kept in
the administration of this estate. The estate has clearly prohibited RMMII from revie~ing
the most important information contained in Pennsylvania Supply Company records and
correspondence with various banks primarily Dauphin Deposit and Hamilton. Further
they have produced none of Robert M. Mumma's personal records or files which where
extensive and would have held his records of various transactions relevant to estate
assets.
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal ... due to ... independent
property rights."
Items4&5
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
conferred by discovery" and ''''The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal... due to ... independent
property rights."
Items6
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal... due to ... independent
property rights."
Item 7
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
5
conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal... due to ... independent
property rights."
Furthermore, these interrogatories are requesting specific information to confirm the
information contained in the estate files is the same as various corporate information
given to RMMII and his attorneys previously.
Item 8
These requests are designed to determine the validity of the estate ownership of various
assets including stock in corporations. Contrary to assertions they have never provid~d
original certificates for Pennsylvania Supply Company, High Spec, or Kim Company
stock claimed to be owned by Robert M. Mumma.
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal... due to ... independent
property rights."
Also sec. 1712 an d 1732 of the BCL
Item 9
RMMII seeks discovery to confirm the information contained in the filed returns and
amended returns. He seek contemporaneously kept records of the corporations that were
used to compile the returns. His authority is RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa
D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights
to inspect books is greater than the normal right conferred by discovery" and ''''The case
law permits an heir to inspect all books and records of the estate and trusts" "attorney
client privilege can not be asserted against a beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of
Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A beneficiary's right to inspect books is
greater than the normal... due to ... independent property rights."
Also sec. 1712 an d 1732 of the BCL
Item 10
This discovery was requested by RMMII to determine if assets that were property of the
shareholders of Pennsylvania Supply Company or Kim Company were improperly
included as estate assets. Both companies adopted specific plans of liquidation that
precisely determined how various assets were to be distributed to shareholders. The
liquidation is authorized by the BCL, and the distribution determined by the resolution of
the shareholders and directors.
Further, the purpose of an accounting is to determine if the estate has be handled to the
benefit of the intended beneficiaries. The will specifically determines allocation and
6
distribution of assets and liabilities. This request is made to facilitate RMMII's expert
witnesses review of the actions of the executrix.
RMMII cites Follansbee v. Gerlach, 56 Pa D&C 4th 483 (Allegheny) Specifically Judge
Wettick finds that "A beneficiary's rights to inspect books is greater than the normal right
conferred by discovery" and ""The case law permits an heir to inspect all books and
records of the estate and trusts" "attorney client privilege can not be asserted against a
beneficiary" also Matter of Estate of Rosenblum, 459 Pa. 201, 328 A.2d 158 (1974). " A
beneficiary's right to inspect books is greater than the normal... due to ... independent
property rights."
Also sec. 1712 an d 1732 of the BCL
Dated December 12, 2005
flmt~/~
Robert M. Mumma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
And
6880 S. E. Harbor Circle
Stuart, FL 34996
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, hereby certify that on December 12, 2005, I served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Answer of Robert M. Mumma, II to Executrix Objections To
Discovery Requests by first class mail, postage prepaid upon the following addresses:
The Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
(Hand-delivery)
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire, Auditor
Andrews & Johnson Law Offices
78 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire
Brady L. Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, P A 19103
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire
Ralph A. Jacobs & Associates LLC
215 South Broad Street, 10th Floor
Philadelphia, P A 19107
Date: December 12,2005
~~a;fL
Robert M. Mumma, II
..
Robert M. Mumma, II
BoxE
Bowmansdale, P A 17008
Pro Se
IN RE: ESTATE OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, deceased
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYL VANIA
ORPHANS ' COURT DIVISION
No. 21-86-398
j-'_l
.....,
AFFIDA VIT
-,."
AND NOW, comes Daryl E. Hewitt, Assistant to Robert M. Mumma, II, and provides
--I L,)
this statement in writing of facts regarding document production responsive to discovery r~uests
by Mr. Mumma in the above-captioned case.
1. An Order entered by the Court on October 12,2005 requires as follows:
"All documents, records, and other materials that are made available by
Executrixes/Trustees in response to the discovery requests of Robert M.
Mumma, II shall be made available by November 7,2005, and shall be inspected
and copied by all Objectors by December 12, 2005. Counsel for the
Executrixes/Trustees shall provide the Auditor with a detailed list of the
documents and records that are made available."
2. As of the date of this statement, I have not seen a copy of the "detailed list of the
documents and records that are made available" that the Court ordered to be provided to the
Auditor. It is reasonable, considering the fact that Mr. Mumma and myself have made roughly a
half dozen visits to the Philadelphia office of Morgan Lewis to review the documents, that we
should have been copied with such a list, if it exists.
...
3. The only detailed list I am aware of is the one compiled by myself of the contents
of the ninety-three (93) boxes at the Morgan Lewis office, for purposes of determining which
documents to copy.
Dated: December 12, 2005
BY:
J2~.,g ~ /J-A
Daryl E. Hewittl
?
.
VERIFICA TION
I, Daryl E. Hewitt, Assistant to Robert M. Mumma, II and as an individual hereby verify
that the facts contained in the foregoing Affidavit, pursuant to Rule 76 of the Pennsylvania Rules
of Civil Procedure, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904
regarding unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Dated: December 12, 2005
BY:
~cJ ( /~./t;
Daryl EHewitt /
~
j, ~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Daryl E. Hewitt, hereby certify that on December 12,2005, I served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing Affidavit by first class mail, postage prepaid upon the following addresses:
The Honorable J. Wesley 01er, Jr.
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
(Hand-del ivery)
Taylor P. Andrews, Esquire, Auditor
Andrews & Johnson Law Offices
78 West Pomfret Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr., Esquire
Brady L. Green, Esquire
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, P A 19103
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Ralph A. Jacobs, Esquire
Ralph A. Jacobs & Associates LLC
215 South Broad Street, 10th Floor
Philadelphia, P A 19107
Date: December 12,2005
-;r:>~(' f".IoL-~4-
Daryl E. HewItt
4