HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-2197F 9FILESOATAFILEUdumma 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844.1 Mumma Estae,M44.5 domesticationufjudgment
Created'. 2/9/04 750AM
5844 1
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.: 06 - -2(17 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO TRANSFER FLORIDA JUDGMENT
PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. § 4306
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby request that the Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate
Review, which was decreed by Order of Court on February 17, 2006, in the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Martin County, Florida, in the amount of $1,615,390.91 and per
diem in the amount of $210.374 from April 19, 2006, be transferred and fully domesticated in the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 4306, relating to Enforcement
of Foreign Judgments, and in support thereof submit the following Exhibits attached to this Petition:
Exhibit A - Triple Sealed Exemplified Record;
Exhibit B - Certified Docket Entries;
Exhibit C - Affidavit Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306; and
Exhibit D - Certificate of Addresses Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306.
V
Respectfully Submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
??A) 4c--?
No V. Otto III, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 27763
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Attorney ID No. 49813
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
FL. Bar No.: 114308
CRARY, BUCHANAN, BOWDISH, BOVIE,
BERES, ELDER & THOMAS, CHARTERED
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
(772) 287-2600
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
[?? k,G 1+4
Case # 89-503-CA
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN
Barbara McK. Muuma, et al
VS
Robert Mumma II, et al
/Plaintiff
/Defendant
I, Levi Johnson, a Deputy Clerk to Marsha Ewing, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Martin County, State of Florida,
having by law the custody of the seal and all the records, books, documents and papers of or pertaining to the Circuit Court,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing are true and correct copies of the documents on file in our office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and seal of said Court, this_i- day of April, 2006, A.D.
Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN
o as > +
By.
E
I, Robert Makemson, a Judge of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Martin
County, do hereby certify that Marsha Ewing is the Clerk of the Circuit Court of said County, State of Florida, and the
signature attached to the above certificate and attestation, purporting to be of Levi Johnson, a Deputy Clerk, is her genuine
signature and at the time thereof she was a Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida and as such full faith
and credit are due all her acts, and that said attestation is in due form of law and by the proper officer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have here unto set my hand and sal of Sal Court, thi / day of April, 2006, A.D.
Judge of the Circui Court of the
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF MARTIN
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of
Florida in and for Martin County
I, Levi Johnson, a Deputy Clerk to Marsha Ewing, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Martin County, State of Florida, having by
law the custody of the seal and all the records, books, documents, and papers of or appertaining to the said Circuit Court, do
hereby certify that, Robert Makemson, whose signature is affixed to the foregoing certificate is one of the Judges of the
Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida and duly qualified and commissioned, and that said
signature is genuine.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of said Court, this day of April, 2006, A.D.
?inJtl1O
•
•
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
BARBARA McK. Mumma and
LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the Residuary
Trust under the Last Will of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a
dissolved Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROBERT MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
a dissolved Florida corporation,
CASE NO.: 89-503 CA
JUDGE: Robert Makemson
Defendants.
c?
r-
7AC3
'a;
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW
On November 28 and 29, 2005 a final hearing, with evidence, was held before this Court on
those matters remaining fordecisioninthiscase following appellate review. PuTsuantto this Court's
Order Determining Remaining Issues and Ruling on Pending Motions dated October 31, 2005, the
only matters remaining for decision at the time of the final hearing were: (1) Def'endants' Motion to A N y
Dismiss or Stay dated December 16, 2004; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment ?2PA
Following Appellate Review, which sought an award of interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and an
amended final judgment consistent with appellate review; (3) Plaintiff's' Motion for Attomeys Fees;
(4) Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint a Receiver. The Court, having received evidence an d heard
testimony and argument on these matters, finds and determines that the following Amended Final = o
Judgment should be entered by this Court as follows:
e
m
HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION Z?
1. On July 26, 1993, this Court, through Judge Marc Cianca, entered a Final Judgment aM
which dissolved the Defendant Florida Corporation, High-Spec, Inc. and determined among other
things that Defendant Robert Mumma, 11 caused the illegal distribution of certain real property to m?
himself and is liable to High-Spec, Inc. in the amount of $450,000.00 plus prejudgment interest from S®
December 21, 1989 in the amount of $189,887.67.
x
n N
? o
0
a
s?
Book2115/Page1691 CFN#1913171 Page 1 of 13
• 0
2. The Court also required the directors of High-Spec, Inc. to prepare a final accounting
and wind up and liquidate the corporation.
3. By order on Defendants' Motion for New Trial or Rehearing to Alter or Amend
Judgment dated February 28, 1994, the Court suspended the running of interest on the prior July 26,
1993 Final Judgment and made certain amendments to debts created for the acquisition of the
corporation's assets, finding the corporation was owed the following debts created for the acquisition
of the corporation's assets:
A. To the Estate of Robert Mumma, Sr, the amount of $94,526.51;
B. To Mumma Realty Associates the amount of $330,320.91;
C. To Robert M. Mumma, II, the amount of $415,229.28.
4. By Order Re: Case Disposition dated June 15, 1998, this Court entered a final order
closing further proceedings in this action on the grounds that the parties did not pursue the case
diligently.
5. Both parties filed appeals from the June 15, 1998 order.
6. By an opinion dated June 9, 1999 entered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of
the State of Florida in Mumma v. Mumma 734 So.2d 571 (Fla. 4" DCA 1999) the appellate court
reversed the order of Judge Schack closing the case and determined that the 1993 partial Final
Judgment remains in force and need not be revisited on remand. The appellate court also determined
that the only issues left to be decided concerned the final accounting and winding up of the
corporation as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
7. By separate order also dated June 9, 1999, the appellate court granted the Motion by
Lisa Mumma Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma, individually and as Co-Executrixes of the Estate
of Robert M, Mumma, deceased, and on behalf of High-Spec, Inc. for attorneys' fees on appeal
conditioned upon them being prevailing parties on the merits.
8. Following remand, a trial was held on the remaining issues identified by the appellate
court in its opinion. During this time, the trial transcript shows that Defendant Robert Mumma's
counsel raised, for the first time, the existence of a shareholder's agreement which Judge Bryan
refused to entertain because it had not been raised in the 1993 trial. (2000 Trial Transcript, p. 126).
9. The trial resulted in a Final Judgment entered by Judge Bryan of this Court on March
15, 2000. The Final Judgment recited the entry of the Final Judgment of Judge Cianca in 1993 and
adopted previous findings of the Court.
10. The Final Judgment also determined various issues relating to the final accounting
i GV,A Coo f..\ 1
4?Q gl??p !
Book2115/Page1692 CFN#1913171 Page 2 of 13
of the corporation and distribution of the corporate assets.
11. In this 2000 Final Judgment, the Court declined to award interest on the judgment
subsequent to July 26, 1993 and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees at both the appellate
and lower court levels.
12. Defendants filed an appeal from this Final Judgment, and Plaintiffs filed a cross-
appeal. In their brief, Defendants did not assign as error Judge Bryan's refusal to consider the
alleged shareholder's agreement in determining ownership by Mumma Sr's estate of 501/6 of the
shares of High-Spec, Inc. stock.
13. By an opinion dated March 28, 2001 entered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal
for the State of Florida in Mumma v. Mumma, 780 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4 h DCA 2001), rev, den. 797
So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2001), the appellate court modified that portion of the March 15, 2000 Final
Judgment which suspended interest after the 1993 Final Judgment. The appellate court also
modified the trial court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion for attomeys' fees for fees incurred in the
trial court and previous appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial court to determine such an
award.
14. The appellate court also issued a separate order awarding appellate attomeys' fees to
the Plaintiffs for this second appeal and ordered the trial court to determine the amount of these fees.
15. On April 27, 2001, Defendants filed a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction to
the Supreme Court for review of the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
16. On October 5, 2001, the Supreme Court of Florida denied review and granted
Respondents' (i.e. Plaintiffs') Request for Attorneys' Fees on Appeal and made an award in the
amount of $2,500.00.
17. Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry ofAmended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review
seeks the entry of an Amended Final Judgment consistent with the appellate decisions of the Fourth
District Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Florida in 2001 and specifically requests:
A. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the lower court proceedings;
B. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the first appeal from this Court's
1998 Order closing the case;
C. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered for lower court proceedings
following remand culminating in March 15, 2000 trial;
D. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the appeal ofthe Court's March
15, 2000 Final Judgment;
?a ?,
f r. f ? ?J/ in
?? .moo
Book2115/Page1693 CFN#1913171 Page 3 of 13
•
•
E. Interest on the 1993 Final Judgment to the date of entry of the Amended Final
Judgment;
F. Reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,500.00 awarded by Supreme Court
of Florida in its October 5, 2001 decision;
G. Such further adjustment to the final accounting as may be appropriate in light of the
appellate decisions;
H. An award of costs as may be appropriate, including costs for all appellate work and
at the trial court;
18. On August 15, 2002, Plaintiffs served an Amendment to Plaintiff's' Motion for Entry
of Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review to request the award of prejudgment
interest on the attorneys' fees awarded by both the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court of Florida from the time of the award of those fees in those appellate courts. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees dated May 8, 2001 seeking lower court
and appellate attorneys' fees.
19. On November 18, 2003 Plaintiffs served their Motion for Appointment of a Receiver
to take possession of High-Spec's certificate of deposit funds in Pennsylvania and to pay the
corporate debts and make appropriate distributions according to the amended final judgment.
20. On June 6, 2003, Defendant Mumma II filed his Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for aNew Trial Due to Recently Discovered Evidence of Lack of Jurisdiction and Fraud
Upon the Court. In his motion Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs are not shareholders of High-
Spec, Inc. and alleged in paragraph 14 under "newly discovered evidence" that a shareholder's
agreement existed. By order entered January 16, 2004, Judge Angelos denied this motion.
Defendants Mumma and High-Spec, Inc. timely appealed. Their brief did not raise the shareholder's
agreement but instead argued on other grounds that the circuit court erred in denying the motion.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the January 16, 2004 order per curiam on May 11,
2005, and issued a mandate on July 8, 2005. The Fourth District also issued an order awarding
Plaintiffs their appellate attorneys' fees. Following remand Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Motion to
Assess Attorneys' Fees on Third Appeal dated August 5, 2005.
21. On December 16, 2004, Defendant Mumma, acting pro se at the time, filed his
Motion to Dismiss or Stay in which he contended that this action should be dismissed because the
inventory in his father's ancillary estate in Florida, which the Court determines was dismissed in
1999, failed to include the shares of High-Spec, Inc. stock as an asset. He also alleged that the shares
of stock in High-Spec, Inc. which were distributed from his father's Pennsylvania estate to his
Residuary Trust on January 1, 2002, were subject to a shareholder's agreement, an unsigned copy
of which he attached to his motion. Defendant Mumma IT had previously raised this shareholder's
agreement in the 2000 trial before Judge Bryan and again in his June 6, 2003 Motion to Dismiss.
4
Book2115/Page1694 CFN#1913171 Page 4 of 13
• •
He asked that this action be stayed pending the outcome of a related Pennsylvania court action he
had filed to determine the enforceability of this shareholder's agreement.
22. On May 24, 2005, Plaintiffs served their Motion to Add Additional Party Plaintiffs.
In this motion, they sought to add themselves as additional Plaintiffs in this action in their capacities
as Co-Trustees of Robert Mumma'sResiduary Trust contained in his will, Their motion alleged that
the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr., had, on January 1, 2002, distributed its interest in the High-Spec,
Inc. shares to the decedent's Residuary Trust of which they were Co-Trustees. Because Defendant
Mumma had contended that Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes of this estate, lacked standing to maintain
this action, they sought to make the standing issue moot by j oining themselves in their capacities as
Co-Trustees as well. This motion was granted by the Court, after which the Plaintiffs, as Co-
Trustees, filed their Appearance by Trustees of Residuary Trust and Consent to Plaintiffs' Actions
in which they consented to all actions of themselves as Co-Executrixes, the appointment of a
Receiver, the entry of an Amended Final Judgment, and to the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.
II.
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
Defendant Robert Mumma's Motion to Dismiss or Stay was denied by this Court by order
entered at the hearing on November 29, 2005, and that denial is hereby confirmed. Defendant's
continued attempts to relitigate the shareholder status of the Plaintiffs based on allegations of an
existing shareholder's agreement are barred by res judicata, estoppel by judgment, and judicial
waiver by failing to raise on appeal this Court's refusal to consider the alleged shareholder's
agreement in the 2000 Final Judgment and the January 16, 2004 Order on Defendant Mumma's
Motion to Dismiss or for New Trial. Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Amended Final Judgment
Following Appellate Review, as amended, is granted. This Court hereby enters an Amended Final
Judgment awarding, among other things, attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes
in accordance with previous decisions by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Florida
Supreme Court for work done by Plaintiffs attorneys in this matter both at the trial court level and
on appellate review, including work through the date of this order. However, because the hearing
on November 29, 2005 failed to conclude with all evidence necessary for the Court to adjudicate
Plaintiffs' attomeys' fees and costs, this Court reserves jurisdiction to enter a separate final judgment
determining the amount of costs and attorneys' fees upon conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on
costs and attorneys' fees to be scheduled in the future. Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes, are also
awarded interest on the 1993 Final Judgment as previously determined by this Court in its Non-Final
Order on Interest Issue dated December 22, 2005. Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of a Receiver
is also granted. This Court's Final Judgment dated March 15, 2000 is hereby amended and restated,
and the following is hereby substituted as follows:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
23. High- Spec, Inc. is hereby dissolved as a result of the shareholders being deadlocked
and the illegal distribution of a major corporate asset to Robert M. Mumma, H.
yS t? ,
Book2115/Page1695 CFN#1913171 Page 5 of 13
i 0
24. Robert M. Mummall caused the illegal distribution of certain real property to himself
and is liable to the corporation, High Spec, Inc. for said distribution in the amount of $450,000 plus
prejudgment interest at the rate of Twelve (12%) per annum from December 12, 1989 until the date
of the entry of the original Final Judgment on July 26,1993 in the amount of $189,887.67, for a total
sum due and owing on the Final Judgment as of July 26, 1993 of $639,887.67. ' Judge Cianca's
February 28, 1994 order suspending the running of interest on this judgment, which was approved
by this Court in its Final Judgment entered March 15, 2000, has since been modified on appeal to
allow for interest. Therefore, this sum of $639,887.67 shall constitute the "Judgment Sum."
Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes of the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr., deceased, on behalf of Plaintiff
High-Spec, Inc. shall recover this Judgment Sum from Defendant Robert Mumma 11, individually,
whose Florida address is 6880 SE Harbor Circle, Swart, FL 34996-1968, and this Judgment Sum
shall bear interest from and after July 26, 1993 at the statutory rate applicable to thejudgment when
entered in 1993 which, under §55.03, Fla. Stat. (1993) was 12% per annum.' The daily rate of post-
judgment interest at 12% per annum on the sum of $639,887.67 after July 26, 1993 is $210.374 per
day, and interest at the rate of 12%, per annum shall continue from that date through the entry of this
Amended Final Judgment and thereafter on the unpaid balance of the Judgment Sum until paid in
full. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed and ordered to issue a writ of execution forthwith
on the Judgment Sum plus all accrued interest to the date of this order. The address of Plaintiff Lisa
Mumma Morgan is 1140 N. Ocean Boulevard, Gulfstream, FL 33483-7230, and the address of
Plaintiff Barbara McK. Mumma is 4333 North Ocean Blvd., Apt D-55, Delray Beach, FL 33483.
The address of Plaintiff High-Spec, Inc. is c/o Robert Mumma Il, its sole surviving director, 6880
SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996-1968 and also P.O. Box 58, Bowmansdale, PA 17008.
' This Court finds that in calculating the amount of the judgment on which post-
judgment interest runs, the prejudgment interest component becomes part of the single total sum
adjudged to be due, with post judgment interest accruing on the merged total. Ouality
Eneineered Installation. Inc, Y. Hielev South. Inc, 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996).
2 This Court is fully aware that §55.03, Florida Statutes, was amended effective
January 1, 1995 to require the Comptroller of the State of Florida to set interest rates on judgments
on an annual basis. After that statute took effect, annual rates of interest on judgments set by the
Comptroller of the State of Florida have fluctuated. However, the rate provided for by §55.03 in
1993 when the judgment in this action was entered was 12% per annum. Because the judgment in
this action was entered before the effective date of the 1995 amendment, the rate applicable at the
time of the judgment, i.e. 12% per annum, applies here despite the subsequent annual changes
announced by the Comptroller. See Beverly .ntc rises-Florida. Inc. Y. Soilman 689 So. 2d 1230
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Gilmore v. Morrison, 341 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)(holding
that where a money judgment is modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court
is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, interest on the judgment as modified runs
from the date of the original judgment.) Here, the 1993 final judgment awarding $450,000 plus
$189,887.67 inprejudgment interest against Defendant Mumma IIhas never been reversed onappeal
other than to modify and correct Judge Bryan's failure to award interest on it and to award trial court
and appellate attorneys' fees in his 2000 Final Judgment.
??acwr ?;?,1
Book2115/Page1696 CFN#1913171 Page 6 of 13
0 0
25. The corporation is liable for the following debts created for the acquisition of the
corporations's assets, real estate:
A. To the Estate of Robert Mumma Sr., the amount of $94,526.51;
B. To Mumma Realty Associates I, the amount of $330,329.91.
C. To Robert Mumma, II, $415,229.28.
26. The loans by Robert M. Mumma, II, or his controlled companies were used to build
his personal residence and are not valid corporate debts of High-Spec, Inc.
27. At the November 28 and 29, 2005 final hearing, this Court also heard and received
evidence and arguments on Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Receiver dated November 13, 2003. Upon
the evidence presented and arguments of counsel, this Court determines that the appointment of a
Receiver is necessary pursuant to §607.1432, Fla. Stat. 2005 in order to liquidate the Certificate of
Deposit in the name of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. currently on deposit with M&T Bank in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and to collect and receive from the Plaintiffs whatever Plaintiffs, in their
capacities as Co-Executrixes, recover on the money judgment against Defendant Robert Mumma
II for $450,000 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest, after Plaintiffs pay themselves such
attorneys' fees and costs as the Court may enter in a separate final judgment in the future. The
appointment of a Receiver is also needed to wind down and pay the debts and obligations of High-
Spec, Inc. and distribute its assets.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
a. April Hicks, an individual who is a member of the local accounting firm of Proctor,
Crook, and Crowder, is hereby appointed in this action as Receiver for High-Spec, Inc., a dissolved
Florida corporation.
b. The appointmentof April Hicks asReceiver is subject tothe condition precedent that
she file with the Clerk of this Court a copy of a fidelity bond in the sum of eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000) issued by a surety company licensed in the State of Florida and conditioned on
her faithful receipt and disposition of the funds and property of High-Spec, Inc. which come into her
possession, custody, and control as Receiver. The Receiver's fidelity bond shall be approved by the
Clerk of this Court or, if the Clerk fails to do so, by further order of this Court. Upon approval of
this fidelity bond by the Clerk or this Court of by this Court, April Hicks shall automatically be
authorized to perform her duties as Receiver without need for any further order of this Court.
C. The Receiver shall serve for compensation at her normal hourly rates, as they may
exist from time to time, plus the Receiver's attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, all of which are to
be paid from the assets of High-Spec, Inc. as a priority claim above all other debts and obligations
of High-Spec, Inc. and without the necessity of further order of this Court approving same. The
Receiver's duties to report assets received by her shall be controlled by Rule 1.620 (b), Florida Rules
i ?p,41;;7, Cp
? G 1'i'fln
r,
Book2115/Page1697 CFN#1913171 Page 7 of 13
0
of Civil Procedure or such later amendments to this Rule as may, from time to time, be adopted.
d. The assets of High-Spec, Inc. include, but are not necessarily limited to, that certain
certificate of deposit ("Certificate of Deposit") in an amount in excess of $833,332.46 in the name
of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. deposited with M&T Bank located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
together with whatever funds may be recovered by Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes and paid by them
to the Receiver on the money judgment entered against Defendant Robert Mumma, A in this action,
after Plaintiffs' pay the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr. such attorneys' fees and costs which may be
awarded in a subsequent and separate Final Judgment.
e. As to the Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank, Judge Marc Cianca entered an
order in this action dated May 27, 2003 in which he ordered that the funds in this Certificate of
Deposit (formerly at Dauphin Deposit Bank) should remain intact until the disposition of this action
and required Defendant Mumma II to comply with this order and with a similar order entered by the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in No. 21 Equity 1993. Judge
Cianca's 1993 order is hereby modified to grant to the Receiver the sole and absolute authority to
demand and receive from M&T Bank, at the Receiver's sole discretion, all funds representedby this
Certificate of Deposit less any penalty for early withdrawal. Noperson, other than the Receiver, shall
be entitled to withdraw these funds from M&T Bank. M&T Bank, its successors or assigns, is
ordered to pay over to the Receiver all funds represented by this Certificate of Deposit and all other
funds, if any, at said bank in the name of High-Spec, Inc, and to provide to the Receiver all
information, if any, on the accounts of High-Spec, Inc. and the history of any accounts formerly in
the name of High-Spec, Inc. which may have been closed. In the event that the Receiver is unable
to collect the Certificate of Deposit at M&T Bank in the name of High-Spec, Inc. within a reasonable
period of time, or in the event that the bond premium for the Receiver must be paid in full before the
Receiver's bond is issued, Plaintiffs shall advance as a loan to the Receiver, all of the Receiver's
fees, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, including the cost for the Receiver's bond, that the
Receiver may have incurred to that point, and Plaintiffs shall be reimbursed by the Receiver for said
sums immediately upon the Receiver's liquidation of the Certificate of Deposit.
f. The Receiver of High-Spec, Inc. shall, in accordance with the final accounting and
plan of distribution set forth in the Amended Final Judgment, wind down and liquidate the
corporation's assets andpay its debts and obligations pursuant to Section 607.1405, Fla. Stat. (2005).
Should the Receiver determine that certain debts or obligations of High-Spec, Inc. owed by High-
Spec to third parties as set forth in this Amended Final Judgment no longer exist or exist at different
amounts than described in this Amended Final Judgment, or should the Receiver need further
clarification or orders from this Court in the wind-down process, the Receiver may seek further
instructions, guidance, or orders from this Court.
g. The Receiver shall have all powers enumerated under Section 607.1432, Fla. Stat.
(2005), including, but not limited to, the power to hire counsel in any State in which issues
pertaining to the winding up of the corporation may be concerned, including the States of Florida
and Pennsylvania.
/yl?'.!4TL E?
Book2115/Page1698 CFN#1913171 Page 8 of 13
• 0
h. All fees, costs, and expenses of the Receiver, together with all attorney's fees of the
Receiver, shall be deemed additional costs of this litigation and shall be taxed as subsequently
determined by this Court.
i. Defendant, Robert M. Mumma, II, individually and as sole surviving director of
Defendant High-Spec, Inc., is hereby ordered to fully and completely cooperate with and furnish to
the Receiver, at the request of the Receiver, all High-Spec, Inc. information within his knowledge
and all High-Spec, Inc. corporate records, documents, tax returns, bank statements, certificates of
deposit, and other documents and information on High-Spec, Inc. in said Defendant's possession,
custody, or control or in the possession, custody, or control of High-Spec, Inc. orits accountants and
attorneys. Defendant Mummall, individually and as sole surviving directorof Defendant High-Spec,
Inc., shall likewise execute and deliver to the Receiver such further consents, forms, or other
instruments as may be requested by the Receiver in order to permit the Receiver to liquidate the
Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank or take possession of any other assets, accounts, or property
of High-Spec, Inc.
j. The Receiver shall take possession, custody and control over all assets of High-Spec,
Inc., including but not limited to bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and other assets, wherever
in the world they may be located. Plaintiffs, however, in their capacities as Co-Executrixes, and on
behalf of High-Spec, Inc., shall have the right to continue enforcement and collection of the Final
Judgment for damages against Defendant Robert Mumma II and to take all action appropriate in
connection therewith, including but not limited to post judgment collection proceedings in Florida
and domestication and collection of the final judgment in Pennsylvania and elsewhere as needed
until the judgment is collected in full. Upon collection of the Final Judgment for damages and the
payment to themselves as Co-Executrixes of such attorneys' fees and costs as may be subsequently
awarded, Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes shall account to the Receiver and turn over such additional
funds collected on the Final Judgment.
k. Upon liquidation by the Receiver of the assets of High-Spec, Inc. and upon the
payment of High-Spec, Inc's debts and obligations and the distribution of its assets, the Receiver's
duties shall end, and the Receiver may apply to this Court for her discharge and for the discharge
of the surety and termination and cancellation of the Receiver's bond. Until termination of the
receivership, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary and
proper during the wind down of High-Spec, Inc.
28. The debts owed by High-Spec, Inc. for Trade Payables, Intereston Pennsylvania Tax,
to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mumma Realty Associates, I, and to Defendant Robert Mumma
II are not money judgments but rather a finding by Judge Cianca in 1993 as to debts which High-
Spec owed to creditors prior to liquidation of High-Spec, Inc.'s assets. None of these debts was
determined to bear interest, and, except for the money judgment against Defendant Robert Mumma
11 which, consistent with appellate review, shall bear interest as determined in this Amended Final
Judgment, nothing in this Amended Final Judgment shall be construed as permitting interest to run
on these debts.
6 t 9w t9
\?T f
Book21151Page1699 CFN#1913171 Page 9 of 13
• 0
29. Due to the appellate decisions affecting interest and attorneys' fees and costs, and this
Court's decision to appoint a Receiver, the final accounting and plan of distribution provided for in
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the March, 2000 Final Judgment is no longer accurate and must be adjusted
to be consistent with appellate review. Accordingly, those paragraphs of the 2000 Final Judgment,
are hereby amended to read as follows:
7. In accordance with appellate review and this Court's determination of the
amounts of interest and the costs and attorneys' fees to be determined in a separate final judgment
to be entered in the future, the following formula and plan of distribution of assets is adopted. This
plan assumes the collection of the Final Judgment in full by Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes and the
liquidation of the Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank. Appropriate adjustments must be made
on verification by the Receiver of the correct amounts of the Certificate of Deposit, the payment of
the Receiver's fees, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, adjustment of those items indicated below
that are subject to adjustment or verification, and Plaintiffs' post-judgment interest, attorney's fees,
costs, and expenses.
Certificate of Deposit-Cash-Subject to
Change and Verification
Less: Outside Creditors to be Paid
Trade Payables-Subject to
Change and Verification
Pennsylvania Income Tax
Subject to Change and
Verification
Interest-Pennsylvania Tax
Estimated-Subject to Change
and Verification
Balance of Cash Available to
Distribute - Subject to Change
$833,332.46
12,121.99
33,858.00
15.000.00 60.979.99
$772,352.47
Pay to: Estate of Robert M. Mumma
Principal
Mumma Realty Associates I
Principal
Balance for Cash Distribution
Robert M. Mumma II Owes-Net
after Offsets - Judgment
Interest to July 26, 1993
10
94,526.51
330320.91 424.847.42
$347,505.05
450,000.00
189.887.67
\PpUli ??' .
Book2115/Page1700 CFN#1913171 Page 10 of 13
•
Total Judgment Owed
Plus Interest owed from July 27, 1993 to
November 30, 2005 ($639,887.67 x 12% x 12
years 129 days at daily rate of $210.374 per day;
annual rate of $76,786.51) Interest continues
to accrue at the rate of $210.374 per day until
judgment is paid
Total Owed On Judgment Sum
(as of November 30, 2005)
Plus interest from November 30, 2005
to January 20, 2006 (51 days @
$210.374 per day)
Total Owed On Judgment Sum
(as of January 20, 2006)
Plus attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded
by separate final judgment in the future
Plus Interest Owed on Judgment Sum
after January 20, 2006 at $210.374
Less owed to Robert M. Mumma
II per 2000 Judgment (to be applied
only after payment in full of money
judgment, including all principul,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees)
Net Amount Owed to Plaintiffs on behalf
of High-Spec, Inc. by Defendant Robert
M. Mumma H (subject to adjustment for
interest accrued after 1120106, and future
costs, expenses and fees before deduction
ofdebt of $415,229.28 owed to Robert
Mumma II)
Total Assets Available for
Shareholders (balance cash for distribution
plus net owed on judgment, subject to
adjustment for future post judgment
interest, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
E
639,887.67
948,155.88
$ 1.588.043.55
$10,729.07
$1.598.772.62
to be determined by separate judgment
415,229.28
$1,183,543.34
"??,
+r Rt
sr?'!
??irgN. F
Book2115/Page1701 CFN#1913171
Page 11 of 13
L
0
before deduction of debt to Robert Mumma 11) $ 1,531,048.39
Less Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Interest
on same payable to Plaintiffs as Executrixes
of Estate of Robert Mumma, deceased to be determined
Total Assets Available for Shareholders after
deduction for Plaintiffs fees and costs $1,531,048.39 (subj. to adjustment)
One-half payable to each 50% Shareholder (subj to adjustment) $ 765,524.195
ASSETS DISTRIBUTED
Payable to
High-Spec, Inc.
Owed by Robert
M. Mumma II (subject
to adjustment)
Cash (subject to
adjustment)
Owed by Robert
Mumma, Il to respective
parties
Defendant Plaintiff
Robert M. Barbara McK.
Mumma II Mumma et a] - Total
$1.183.543.34 $591.771.67 $1383.543.34
0 $ (to be determined)*) (to be determined)*
*Fiyure represents cash amount less attorney's fees
$ (to be determined) $ (to be determined) $(to be determined)
The Receiver of High-Spec, Inc., shall immediately pay the following:
a. Pennsylvania Income Tax, penalties and interest in the
amount of $48,858.00. (Subject to change.)
b. All Trade Payables in the amount of $12,121.99. (Subject
to verification.)
C. $94,526.51 to THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA.
d. $330,320.91 to MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATES I.
8. And accordingly, the Receiver of High-Spec, Inc., is authorized and directed,
12
Book2115/Page1702 CFN#1913171 Page 12 of 13
after actual collection of all sums owed by Robert M. Mumma, 11 under the judgment, including all
principal, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, and payments to the
Receiver, to distribute the assets of the corporation as follows:
a. $ (to be determined) to ROBERT M. MUMMA, II.
(Subject to adjustment based on (a) and (b) above).
b. Vto be determined), plus attome ys ees & costs) to BARBARA
MCK. MUMMA and LISAMUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased. (subject to adjustment
based on (a) and (b) above).
30. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Amended Final
Judgment and to issue such furtherorders as may be appropriate in the winding down of High-Spec,
Inc., including the entry of a separate final judgment for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court also
retains jurisdiction to enter orders making such further adjustments and corrections as are necessary
to paragraph 29 of this Amended Final Judgment and to complete and adjust those items in that
paragraph left to be determined or adjusted after this Court's makes a final decision on the amount
of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court also retains jurisdiction to make further orders on the
activities of the Receiver, payment of corporate debts, and distribution of the corporate assets as may
be necessary and proper.
DONE AND ORDERED at Stuart, Florida this /Zday of -O' - , 2006.
Robert Makemson
Circuit Court Judge
copies to:
James L. S. Bowdish, Esquire
Robert Mumma II, individually and as sole surviving Director of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. by
regular U.S. Mail and by certified mail return receipt requested to him at 6880 SE Harbor Cir. Stuart,
FL 34996-1968 and P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008
61 ATE OF FLORIDA
MARTIN COUNTY
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE GAO G^""^ti 9s
CWr c
FOREGOING-0- PAGES ISATRUE ?• b 6 ?*
AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL.
13 MARSHA EVVING. CLERK ?roUN
BY
DATE
Book2115/Page1703 CFN#1913171 Page 13 of 13
It. a RIIui+nu
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
Case: 89000503CA
Run: 04 03 2006
MUMMA BARBARA MCK ETAL
Plaintiff, etal
-vs-
MUMMA ROBERT 11 ETAL
. . . Defendant, etal
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case Type: OTHER CIVIL
File Date: 06 10 1989 Judge: 015
Disp Date: 07 27 1993
Additional Parties
(D) T INC ETAL
(P) MORGAN LISA MUMMA ETAL
(P) MUMMA ROBERT M ESTATE ET
(P) HI SPEC INC ETAL
(D) HI SPEC INC ETAL
(D) FIRST FLORIDA DEVELOPMEN
(cvprtcpd)
Page: 1
OUT OF TOWN ATTY
Attorney
OUT OF TOWN ATTY
Attorney
Court Cost:
Add'1 Cost:
Claim Amt:
NO ATTORNEY
NO ATTORNEY
NO ATTORNEY
OUT OF TOWN ATTY
OUT OF' TOWN ATTY
NO ATTORNEY
637.50
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
06 12 1989 CCS FAX:COMPLT:NMA OMITTED:SMS TO-ROBERT MUMMA 11,HI SPEC,FI 00001
06 12 1989 RST FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT HD TO ATTY: 00002
07 13 1989 ANSWER TO CMPLT OF DFNT HIGH SPEC INC: 00003
07 27 1989 REQUEST TO PRODUCE TO ROBERT MUMMA IT & HIGH SPEC INC: 00004
07 27 1989 SMS RTN CORP SRVD TO HI SPEC 6.13.89: 00005
08 08 1989 REPLY AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: 00006
11 06 1989 SMS RET NOT SRVD ROBERT MUMMA II: 00007
11 14 1989 ALIAS SMS TO-ROBERT MUMMA 11 MLD TO ATTY: 00008
01 18 1990 D-MUMMA II-MTN DISMISS & ANSWER TO CMPLT OF ROBERT MUMMA II: 00009
01 24 1990 ALIAS SMS RET SVRD-ROBERT MUMMA 11 ON 12.23.89: 00010
01 30 1990 NTC OF HEARING 2.9.90:P-ALL-MTN TO CMPL: 00011
02 14 1990 ORDER GRANTING MTN TO CMPL: 00012
03 20 1990 NTC OF DEPO DT ROBERT MUMMA IT 3.19.90: 00013
03 20 1990 NTC OF HEARING 4.24.90:P-ALL-MTN FOR SANCTIONS: 00014
03 23 1990 NTC PRODUCTION FROM NON-PARTY FIRST NATION BANK NOW POSSIBLY 00015
03 23 1990 KNOWN AS FIRST UNION NATIONAL BK FL 3.21.90: 00016
03 27 1990 FAX AFFIDAVIT OF LOST ALIAS SMS ON-ROBERT MUMMA 11:PLURIES S 00017
03 27 1990 MS TO-ROBERT MUMMA 11 MLD TO ATTY FEDERAL EXPRESS: 00018
03 28 1990 ORG AFF FOR LOST SMS: 00019
03 29 1990 D-ALL-NTC TO PRODUCE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OBTAINED PURSUANT T 00020
03 29 1990 0 RULE 1.351(d): 00021
04 02 1990 NTC HEARING 5.2.90:NTC HEARING 4.26.90: 00022
04 04 1990 SUB DT W/O DEPO-FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AKA FIRST UNION NATION 00023
04 04 1990 AL BANK OF FLORIDA MLD TO ATTY FEDERAL EXPRESS: 00024
04 16 1990 SUV DT W/O DEPO RET SVD LILLIE EASTWOOD: 00025
04 19 1990 PLT MTN FOR AN INJUNCTION & FOR A RECEIVER: 00026
04 23 1990 PLURIES SMS RET SVD ROBERT MUMMA IT 4.16.90:NTC PRO 4$y 00027
04 23 1990 ROM NON PARTY SIGNED 4.20.90-DAUPHIN DEPOSIT BANK /F 00028
04 24 1990 MTN TO COMPEL OR TO IMPOSE SANCTIONS:AMENDED NT( O I?R 00029
04
04 24
25 1990
1990 .90 AT 9:OOAM:?A11?+
P-MUMMA-AMND CERT OF SRVC: 00030
00031
e+'?M4y??
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 2
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
***********************x*:r****:r:r:r:r:r:r*:r******:r:r:r:r:r:r:r****?*:r**********************
04 27 1990 P-ROBERT MUMMA-(NTC TO PRODUCE AT HRG):RE-INTTC OF HRG-5.2.90 00032
04 27 1990 AT ll:OOAM:RE-NTC TK DEPO DT-ROBERT MUMMA 2ND: 00033
04 30 1990 ORDER ON MTNS FOR SANCTIONS:ORDER ON DEFT ROBERT M MUMMA II' 00034
04 30 1990 S MTN TO DISMISS: 00035
05 02 1990 EXHIBITS-PLT 1-9 & DEFT 1 IN BIG ENVELOPE IN COURT FILE: 00036
05 04 1990 SUB DT W/O DEPO-SHARON NORBORG MLD TO ATTY: 00037
05 10 1990 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT: 00038
05 24 1990 SUB DT W/O DEPO RET SVD SHARON NORBORG: 00039
05 29 1990 P-MUMMA-MTN APPOINT COMMISSIONER & ALLOW OUT STATE DEPO:NTC 00040
05 29 1990 DEPO DT (2)-WILLIAM D BOSWELL,ESQ & GEORGE: W HADLEY JR: 00041
05 31 1990 AGREED ORDER GRNTNG PL MTN APPOINT COMMISSIONER & ALLOW OUT 00042
05 31 1990 OF STATE DEPO: 00043
06 07 1990 NTC TK DEPO DT-DAUKPHIN BANK & TRUST ON-6.6.90: 00044
06 08 1990 P-BARBARA MUMMA ETAL-(MTN TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER & TO ALLOW 00045
06 08 1990 ADDITIONAL OUT OF STATE DEPO): 00046
06 08 1990 AGREED ORDER GRANTING PLT MTN TO A APPOINT COMMISSIONER & TO 00047
06 08 1990 P ALLOW ADDITIONAL OUT OF STATE DEPO: 00048
02 22 1991 STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: 00049
02 26 1991 ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: 00050
04 08 1991 NTC OF HRG-4.30.91 AT 4:OOPM:P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-( 00051
04 08 1991 MTN TO AMEND CMPLT): 00052
05 02 1991 AGREED ORDER: 00053
05 06 1991 P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(SECOND AMENDED CMPLT): 00054
08 21 1991 DEFT ROBERT MUMMA II'S ANSWER TO 2ND AMND C'.MPLT: 00055
09 06 1991 P-NTC FOR TRIAL:CPY TO JUDGE FENNELLY W/O ENVELOPES: 00056
09 16 1991 ORDER COMPELLING MEDIATION: 00057
09 27 1991 ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION: 00058
10 31 1991 AMND ORDER SCHEDULING MEDIATION: 00059
11 27 1991 MEDIATION REPORT (NEEDS CONTINUANCE): 00060
Ol 14 1992 ORDER SETTING NON JURY TRIAL: 00061
Ol 14 1992 ORDER COMPELLING MEDIATION: 00062
02 10 1992 AGREED ORDER-JOINT MTN TO CONTINUE-GRANTED:P-JOINT MTN TO CO 00063
02 10 1992 NTINUE & FAX CPY: 00064
02 11 1992 NTC TKG DEPO BARBARA MCK MUMMA,LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00065
02 12 1992 P-BARBARA MUMMA,LISA MORGAN & HI SPEC INC-(JOINT MTN TO CONT 00066
02 12 1992 INUE): 00067
02 21 1992 ORDER SETTING TRIAL & DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURE NJT: 00068
03 13 1992 MEMO:ORDER COMPELLING MEDIATION:ORDER SETTING NJT-9.11.92 9: 00069
03 13 1992 OOAM: 00070
09 08 1992 NTC TK DEPO-BARBARA MCK MUMMA & LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00071
09 10 1992 JOINT MTN REGARDING TRIAL SCHEDULE (FAX CPY FROM P REGENSDOR 00072
09 10 1992 F BUT ORG SIGNATURE ON J FIELDS): 00073
10 06 1992 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL: 00074
02 04 1993 NTC HRG 3.7.94 4:OOPM:P-MTN FOR CLARIFICATION & ORDER ON DEF 00117
02 04 1993 TS MTN FOR NEW TRIAL: 00118
03 09 1993 NTC TK DEPO-KEN MAUER,LAURA BREWER,G TOM LAFON,BARBARA MCK M 00075
03 09 1993 UMMA & LISA MUMMA MORGAN:SUB FOR DEPO DT-(,2)-LAURA BRE 00076
03 09 1993 G TOM LAFON HD TO ATTY: G?,' q 00077
03 10 1993 NTC TKG DEPO LARRY BUTCHER,CARLTON WILTON:SUB FOR DE QPf13 0078
03 10 1993 SUED TO CARLTON WILTON,LARRY BUTCHER HD TO ATTY:i 079
03 12 1993 P-NTC UNILATERAL FILING OF PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION: 0080
03 15 1993 SUB FOR DEPO DT RET SRVD INDIVIDUAL SRVC LAURA BREWE 0083
03 15 1993 ROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC SAILFISH POINT: `.,'!cnia 00084
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 3
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
03 16 1993 WITNESS SUB-LAURA BREWER,LARRY BUTCHER,C TOM LAFON & CARLTON 00081
03 16 1993 WILTON HD TO ATTY: 00082
03 16 1993 SUB DEPO DT RET SVD C TOM LAFON:NTC OF HRG 3.15.93-3:45PM: 00085
03 17 1993 DEFTS MTN CONTINUE OR RESCHEDULE TRIAL:NTC HRG 3.15.93 3:45P 00086
03 17 1993 M:NTC TKG DEPO BARBARA MCK MUMMA,LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00087
03 22 1993 SUB RET SRVD CORP SRVC LAURA BREWER SAILFISH PROPERTY OWNERS 00088
03 22 1993 ASSOC: 00089
03 24 1993 SUB RET SVD LARRY BUTCHER,C TOM LAFON,CARLTON WILTON:SUB DEP 00090
03 24 1993 0 DT RET SVD CALRTON WHILTON:SUB DEPO DT RET NOT SVD LARRY 00091
03 24 1993 UTCHER: 00092
04 01 1993 NTC TKG DEPO BARBARA MCK MUMMA,LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00093
05 14 1993 AFF IN SUPPORT OF MTN FOR SANCTIONS:MTN FOR THE IMPOSITION 0 00094
05 14 1993 F SANCTIONS OR A CONSTRUCTICE TRUST & MTN FOR CONTEMPT:NTC 00095
05 14 1993 HRG 5.28.93-4:30PM:NTC TO PRODUCE TO ADVERSE PARTY: 00096
05 26 1993 NTC OF TK DEPO-BARBARA K MUMMA,LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00097
06 14 1993 ORDER FOR NJT 6.28.93: 00098
06 16 1993 MTN FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER: 00099
06 18 1993 NTC OF TK DEPO-BARBARA K MUMMA,LISA MUMMA NIORGAN:ORDER: 00100
06 21 1993 NTC OF TK DEPO-BARBARA K MUMMA,LISA MUMMA MORGAN: 00101
07 01 1993 EXHIBIT LISTING-EVIDENCE IN TOWERS BUILDING:(2) PAGES: 00102
07 27 1993 FINAL JUDGMENT: 00103
08 06 1993 MTN FOR NEW TRIAL OR REHRG,TO ALTER OR AMNL) JUDGMENT,OR IN T 00104
08 06 1993 HE ALTERNATIVE,TO REOPEN EVIDENCE: 00105
08 09 1993 RE NTC HRG 9.21.9. 11:00AM: 00106
09 14 1993 NTC OF FLG-EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 6.28.93: 00107
09 15 1993 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS 6.28 & 6.29.93 (2 VOL): 00108
09 20 1993 RE-NTC HRG 1029393 2:45PM: 00109
10 02 1993 NTC OF APPEARANCE:LTR TO JUDGE CIANCA FROM JORAN FIELD W/ATT 00114
10 02 1993 ACHMENTS:LTR TO JUDGE CIANCA FROM JERMEY A KOSS: 00115
10 15 1993 STIPULATION & ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: 00110
10 25 1993 EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS (6.29.93): 00111
11 01 1993 DEFT MEMO OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MTN FOR NEW TRIAL OR REHR 00112
11 01 1993 G TO ALTER OR AMND JUDGMENT: 00113
11 29 1993 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 10.29.93: 00116
03 01 1994 ORDER ON DEFTS MTN FOR NEW TRIAL OR REHRG TO ALTER OR AMND J 00119
03 01 1994 UDGMENT:(2.28.94): 00120
03 08 1994 COURT MINUTES FOR HRG 3.7.94: 00121
03 10 1994 LTR FROM J CIANCA TO ATTYS FIELDS & MINIX: 00122
03 22 1994 COURT MINUTES 3.22.94-CANCELLED: 00123
03 24 1994 DEFTS MTN FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF MONEY HELL) IN CUSTODIA LEGI 00124
03 24 1994 S:NTC HRG 3.29.94 10:15AM: 00125
03 24 1994 REPLY TO DEFT MTN FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF MONEY HELD IN CUSTO 00126
03 24 1994 DIA LEGI & PL SUBMISSION ON FINAL ACCOUNTING: 00127
03 30 1994 COURT MINUTES OF 3.29.94 HRG: 00128
04 04 1994 P-BARBARA MUMMA-(REPLY TO DEFT MTN FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF MO 00129
04 04 1994 NEY HELD IN CUSTODIA LEGIS & PLT SUBMISSION ON FINAL ACCOU 00130
04 04 1994 ING:ORDER ON DEFT MTN FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF MONEY HELD IN 00131
04 04 1994 CUSTODIA LEGIS-(3.31.94): -- 00132
08
05 01
23 1994
1995 STIPULATION (2):ORDER ADOPTING STIPULATION-7.30 .94
RENTC OF HRG 6.14.95-3:30PM:MTN FOR ORDER COMPELLI 00133
00134
05 23 1995 TION: e'r g 00135
06 14 1995 COURT MINUTES 6.14.95:PL MEMO IN SUPPORT OF' MTN TO -' 00136
09 01 1995 ORDER REGARDING MTN TO COMPEL: "" •.+
00137
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 4
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
06 28 1996 MTN FOR STATUS CONFERENCE:NTC OF HRG UMC-7.16.96 AT 9:OOAM: 00138
07 16 1996 COURT MINUTES 7.16.96: 00139
08 23 1996 LTR TO JUDGE ANGELOS FROM ATTY KOSS:STIPULATION & ORDER FOR 00140
08 23 1996 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 8.21.96: 00141
09 10 1997 D-ROBERT MUMMA ET AL-(DEFT MTN TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PROSEC 00142
09 10 1997 UTION): 00143
09 15 1997 NTC OF HRG UMC-9.23.97 AT 9AM: 00144
09 17 1997 NTC OF CANCELLATION OF HRG SET ON-9.23.97 AT 9AM:SECOND NTC 00145
09 17 1997 OF HRG-11.20.97 AT 11:30AM: 00146
09 22 1997 RE NTC OF SPECIALLY SET HRG 12.10.97-10:00AM: 00147
11 13 1997 MTN TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL & SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: 00148
11 17 1997 LTR TO JUDGE ANGELOS FROM ATTY MINIX:ORDER PERMITTING WITHDR 00149
11 17 1997 AWAL OF COUNSEL & SUBSTITUTION 11.14.97: 00150
11 25 1997 P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(PLT REPLY TO MTN TO DISMISS & 00151
11 25 1997 SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE): 00152
11 26 1997 JUDGE ANGELOS CPY OF LTR FROM ATTY KOEHLER TO CLERK: 00153
12 10 1997 COURT MINUTES 12.10.97: 00154
12 16 1997 LTR TO RUTH FROM MS KOEHLER:ORDER ON DEFTS MTN TO DISMISS FO 00155
12 16 1997 R LACK OF PROSECUTION (DENIED) 12.15.97: 00156
12 23 1997 P-BARBARA MUMMA-(PLT MTN FOR ORDER TO COMPEL ACCOUNTANT TO C 00157
12 23 1997 OMPLETE ACCOUNTING & COMPEL DEFT MUMMA TO PROVIDE DOCUMENT 00158
12 29 1997 D-ROBERT MUMMA-(MTN FOR REHRG AND/OR RECONSIDERATION): 00159
01 20 1998 NTC OF HRG UMC-2.4.98 AT 8:30AM: 00160
02 03 1998 RE-NTC HRG 2.18.98 8:30AM: 00161
02 18 1998 RE NTC OF HRG UMC ON MTN FOR STATUS CONFERENCE ON-3.5.98 AT 00162
02 18 1998 8:30AM: 00163
03 05 1998 COURT MINUTES OF 3.5.98 HRG:COPY OF LTR FROM STEPHEN ROEGIER 00164
03 05 1998 S: 00165
03 13 1998 ORDER DIRECTING PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DATE JT: 00166
03 13 1998 (DCKT CALL-5.11.98 10:00AM-TRIAL 6.22.98): 00167
03 31 1998 LTR TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ATTY KOSS:ORDER ON PL MTN TO COMPEL 00168
03 31 1998 3.28.98: 00169
04 01 1998 AMND ORDER DIRECTING PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DAT 00170
04 01 1998 E-NJT:DOCKET CALL 5.11.98 9:OOAM-TRIAL 6.1.5.98 (4.1.98): 00171
04 02 1998 P-BARBARA MCK MUMMA-(MTN IN LIMINE & MTN FOR CASE MANAGEMEN 00172
04 02 1998 T CONFERENCE:NTC OF HRG UMC-4.9.98 AT 8:30AM): 00173
04 13 1998 SECOND RE NTC OF HRG 4.14.98-8:30AM: 00174
04 14 1998 COURT MINUTES OF 4.14.98 HRG:ORDER ON PLS MTN IN LIMINE & MT 00175
04 14 1998 N FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 4.14.98 1;5.11.98-8:30AM): 00176
04 15 1998 CPY LTR TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ATTY FIELDS (2): 00177
04 24 1998 AMENDED ORDER ON PLT MTN IN LIMINE & MTN FOR CASE MANAGEMENT 00178
04 24 1998 CONFERENCE-(4.23.98): 00179
05 Il 1998 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES-5.11.98-NO ONE APPEARED: 00180
05 14 1998 JOINT MTN FOR EXTENSION OF TIME:NTC OF HRG UMC-5.14.98 AT 8: 00181
05 14 1998 30AM:COURT MINUTES OF 5.14.98 HRG:ORDER ON JOINT MTN FOR E 00182
05 14 1998 ENSION OF TIME-(5.14.98): 00183
05 15 1998 ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS (5.11.98):JOINT PRETRIAL STATEMENT: 00184
05 22 1998 MEDIATION REPORT ON CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATION (I):
co
` 00185
05 26 1998 i
r
u
CPY OF LTR TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ATTY FIELDS:PER JUD o C 00186
05 26 1998 IS VERBAL ORDER-JARS-NOTIFIED COUNSEL OF RECORD T 00187
05 26 1998 IATOR'S REPORT DID NOT COMPLY: + ?* 00188
05 26 1998 MEDIATION REPORT ON CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATION-IMPASSE-- x 00189
05 27 1998 FAXED COPY OF MEDIATION REPORT ON CIRCUIT COURT MED 00190
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 5
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D O C K E T
+***x* *************************:r:r:r:r:r*******:r:r**,r:r*:r:r***?*:r:r:r****:r :r :r***:r :r :r****:r :r*
Date Docket Description Number
06 03 1998 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM JORDAN FIELDS:MEDIATION REPORT 0 00191
06 03 1998 N CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATION (I): 00192
06 10 1998 P-NTC OF FLG SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY TO MTN IN LIMINE:COURT M 00193
06 10 1998 INUTES 6.10.98: 00194
06 15 1998 ORDER RE-DISPOSITION (6.15.98): 00195
06 23 1998 BARBARA & LISA MUMMA-(PLT MTN FOR ORDER TO CORRECT ERROR IN 00196
06 23 1998 FINAL JUDGMENT): 00197
06 29 1998 ORG TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS: 00198
07 09 1998 NTC OF APPEAL-ORDER DATED 6.15.98:CERT OF CLERK:NTC OF APPEA 00199
07 09 1998 L-ORDER DATED 7.26.93:CERT OF CLERK: 00200
07 10 1998 NTC OF APPEAL:CERT OF CLK: 00201
07 16 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NTC OF APPEAL:ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NTC OF APP 00202
07 16 1998 EAL:ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NTC OF APPEAL: 00203
07 17 1998 DIRECTIONS TO CLERK: 00204
08 07 1998 LTR TO APPEAL CLERK FROM ATTY BOWDISH: 00205
08 27 1998 COPY OF ORDER FROM 4DCA (DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED): 00206
09 24 1998 COPY OF ORDER FROM 4DCA: 00207
10 22 1998 LTR TO CLERK FROM ATTY KOSS: 00208
11 16 1998 ORDER 4DCA 11.13.98: 00209
06 14 1999 ORDER 4DCA-MTN FOR ATTYS FEES GRANTED (6.9.99): 00210
07 28 1999 MTN FOR ATTY FEES: 00211
08 02 1999 MANDATE (REVERSED & REMANDED): 00212
09 09 1999 COPY OF LTR TO JUDGE BRYAN FROM JORDAN FIELDS-(9.8.99):NTC F 00213
09 09 1999 OR NON JURY TRIAL COPY TO JUDGE BRYAN W/O ENVELOPES: 00214
09 16 1999 ORDER DIRECTING PRE TRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DATE (DK 00215
09 16 1999 T CALL-11.8.99-10:30AM)(NJT-11.15.99-3.3.C)0)-9.9.99: 00216
09 21 1999 PLTS REQ FOR PRODUCTION: 00217
09 27 1999 P-BARBVARA MCK MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(NTC OF SERVING PLT INTER 00218
09 27 1999 R TO DEFT HI SPEC INC:NTC OF SERVING PLT I:NTERR TO DEFT RO 00219
09 27 1999 RT MUMMA II): 00220
11 04 1999 P-MTN TO COMPEL: 00221
11 08 1999 DEFTS PRETRIAL STATEMENT: 00222
11 08 1999 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES OF 11.8.99 HRG-TRIAL DATE 12.12.99: 00223
11 15 1999 D-ROBERT MUMMA II-(DEFT SUPPLEMENTAL TO EXFIIBIT LIST OF PRET 00224
11 15 1999 RIAL CATALOG): 00225
11 29 1999 NTC OF HRG 12.1.99-8:30AM: 00226
12 01 1999 COURT MINUTES 12.1.99 (PRE TRIAL CONFERENCE): 00227
12 14 1999 LETTER TO JUDGE BRYAN DATED 12.3.99 FROM JORDAN FIELDS:ORDER 00228
12 14 1999 ON CASE MANAGEMENT HRG (12.1.99)(12.6.99): 00229
12 27 1999 DEFTS SUPPLEMENT TO EXHIBIT LIST OF PRETRIAL CATALOG: 00230
01 03 2000 D-ROBERT MUMMA II-(DEFT MTN FOR LEAVE TO PAY ACCOUNTING FEES 00231
01 03 2000 FROM FROZEN ACCOUNT & FOR EXTENSION OF TIME:DEFT MTN TO DI 00232
01 03 2000 OSE TRIAL WITNESS & FOR ISSUANCE OF COMMISSIONER FOR TAKING 00233
Ol 03 2000 OUT OF STATE DEPOSITION IN NEW YORK:NTC OF HRG UMC-1.6.00 00234
Ol 03 2000 9AM): 00235
Ol 05 2000 P-BARBARA MCK MUMMA-(PLT REPLY TO DEFT MTN FOR LEAVE TO PAY 00236
Ol 05 2000 ACCOUNTING FEES): 00237
Ol 06 2000 COURT MINUTES OF 1.6.00 HRG:ORDER ON DEFT MTN FOR L 00238
Ol 06 2000 AY ACCOUNTING FEES FROM FROZEN ACCOUNT & FOR EXTEN '00239
O1 06 2000 ME-(1.6.00):
a
0240
O1 10 2000 NTC TK TELEPHONE DEPO DT-GEORGE HADLEY: 00241
Ol 14 2000 DEFTS MTN TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF GEORGE HADLEY & TO 00242
O1 14 2000 TESTIMONY AT TRIAL:NTC HRG 1.20.00 9:OOAM:
"ow 00243
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S I) 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
01 19 2000 P-BARBARA MCKMUMMA-(PLT REPLY TO DEFT MTN TO STRIKE TESTIMON 00244
01 19 2000 Y): 00245
01 24 2000 RE NTC TK TELEPHONE DEPO DT-GEORGE HADLEY: 00246
01 24 2000 D-ROBERT MUMMA II-(NTC OF FILING FINAL ACCOUNTING): 00247
01 26 2000 D-NTC FILING AFF OF SRVC OF SUB-ORG AFF RET INDIVIUDAL SRVC 00248
01 26 2000 (NO ORG SUB ATTACHED) GEORGE HADLEY:LETTER. TO JUDGE BRYAN 00249
01 26 2000 TED 1.20.00 FROM JEREMY A KOSS:ORDER ON DEF'TS MTN TO STRIKE 00250
01 26 2000 TESTIMONY OF GEORGE HADLEY & TO PROHIBIT TESTIMONY AT TRIA 00251
01 26 2000 GRANTED (1.26.00): 00252
02 04 2000 PLT EXHIBIT 1 NTC OF FILING PLT ACCOUNTING: 00253
02 09 2000 BOWDISH AFF AS TO ATTYS FEES: 00254
02 17 2000 COURT MINUTES OF 2.17.00 HRG: 00255
02 17 2000 DEFT EXHIBIT FIL IN COURT FILE EXHIBITS 1-5: 00256
02 18 2000 PLT EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION:DEFT EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION: 00257
03 15 2000 LETTER TO JUDGE BRYAN DATED 3.10.00 FROM JEREMY A KOSS:LETTE 00258
03 15 2000 R TO JUDGE BRYAN DATED 3.14.00 FROM JORDAN FIELDS:FINAL JU 00259
03 15 2000 MENT (3.15.00): 00260
04 11 2000 NTC OF APPEAL-ORDER DATED 3.15.00:CERT OF CLERK: 00261
04 14 2000 NTC OF CROSS APPEAL:CERT OF CLERK: 00262
04 17 2000 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW CASE FROM 4DCA (4.12.00): 00263
04 27 2000 D-ROBERT MUMMA-(DEFT NTC OF SERVING DESIGNATION TO REPORTER 00264
04 27 2000 & REORTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT): 00265
05 17 2000 DESIGNATION TO REPORTER & REPORTER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: 00266
06 19 2000 ORG TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR 2.17.00 9:40AM: 00267
07 03 2000 ORDER FROM 4DCA: 00268
03 29 2001 ORDER 4DCA DATED 3.28.01-MTN FOR ATTYS FEES-GRANTED: 00269
04 17 2001 MANDATE-AFFIRMED IN PART,REVERSED IN PART,AND REMANDED FOR F 00270
04 17 2001 URTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DECISION: 00271
05 09 2001 PLTS 2ND MTN FOR ATTYS FEES: 00272
10 09 2001 SUPREME COURT ORDER-PETITION FOR REVIEW-DEINfTED/RQST FOR ATTY 00273
10 09 2001 S FEES ON APPEAL-GRANTED(10.5.01): 00274
10 24 2001 APPEAL VOLUMES 1 - 6 AND 1 LARGE BROWN ENVELOPE RETURNED: 00275
01 29 2002 PLTS MTN FOR ENTRY OF AMND FJ FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW:NTC 00276
01 29 2002 OF APPEARANCE AS CO-COUNSEL FOR PLTS: 00277
03 04 2002 BOWDISH NTC OF UNAVAILABILITY: 00278
03 11 2002 STIPULATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL: 00279
04 03 2002 LETTER TO JUDGE BRYAN DATED 3.26.02 FROM JAMES L S BOWDISH:O 00280
04 03 2002 RDER SUBSTITUTING COUNSEL (3.27.02): 00281
07 15 2002 BOWDISH NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY: 00282
08 15 2002 P-AMENDMENT TO PLTS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED FINAL 00283
08 15 2002 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00283
12 31 2002 NOTICE FOR NON-JURY TRIAL FOR ENTRY OF AMENDED FINAL 00284
12 31 2002 JUDGMENT:COPY TO JUDGE SCHACK W/ENVELOPES: 00284
01 15 2003 PLTS NOTICE OF FIRST CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: 00285
01 17 2003 FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ: 00286
01 24 2003 MOTION FOR RECUSAL OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBY(D-ROBERT 00287
01 24 2003 MUMMA): 00287
01 28 2003 ORDER DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DATE-NJT 00288
01 28 2003 DOCKET CALL-3.12.03-TRIAL-APRIL 1-3,14-17
28-30.20
" 00288
01 28 2003 ,
CUUq
(1.27.03): o`w^ T
s
G
f
??} 00288
01 31 2003 DEFTS MOTION TO SET INTEREST RATE AND MEMORANDUM Q
e
j
° 00289
01 31 2003 OPPOSITION TO PLTS MOTION TO SET INTEREST RATE: S
ff 00289
02 06 2003 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: 00290
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 7
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
02 06 2003 PLTS WITNESS LIST: 00291
02 07 2003 ORDER OR RECUSAL(2.7.03): 00292
02 10 2003 DEFTS WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST: 00293
02 12 2003 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME: 00294
02 12 2003 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL: 00295
02 12 2003 NOTICE TO WITHDRAW WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST: 00296
02 13 2003 MOTION TO WITHDRAW: 00297
02 13 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 2.24.03 8:45AM: 00298
02 13 2003 PLTS VERIFIED MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH MEDIATION FOLLOWING 00299
02 13 2003 APPELLATE REVIEW: 00299
02 18 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 2.24.03 8:45AM-D-MOTION FOR 00300
02 18 2003 EXTENSION OF TIME (COPY): 00300
02 20 2003 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE-FOR ROBERT M MUMMA II: 00301
02 20 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 2.24.03 8:45AM: 00302
02 24 2003 COURT MINUTES 2.24.03 8:45A: 00303
02 24 2003 COURT MINUTES 2.24.03 8:45A: 00304
03 04 2003 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK DATED 2.24.03 FROM RICARDO A 00305
03 04 2003 13ANCIELLA: 00305
03 04 2003 AGREED ORDER ON DEFT MUMMA'S MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE OF 00306
03 04 2003 TRIAL AND EXTENSION OF TIME-GRANTED (3.3.03): 00306
03 04 2003 PLTS REPLY TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION: 00307
03 04 2003 PLTS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFT MUMMA II 00308
03 04 2003 FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00308
03 06 2003 DEFTS REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS TO PLT: 00309
03 07 2003 ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT (TO JUDGE LARRY SCHACK)(3.5.03): 00310
03 10 2003 FAXED COVER LETTER DATED 3.6.03 TO JUDGE SC"HACK FROM 00311
03 10 2003 RICARDO BANCIELLA: 00311
03 10 2003 STIPULATION & ORDER FOR SUBSTITUION OF COUNSEL-ORDER- 00312
03 10 2003 (3.7.03): 00312
03 12 2003 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES FOR 3.12.03 10:30AM-NOT HEARD: 00313
03 18 2003 PLTS WITNESS LIST: 00314
03 18 2003 PLTS EXHIBIT LIST: 00315
03 25 2003 ORDER DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DATE-NJT 00316
03 25 2003 DOCKET CALL-5.7.03 AT 11:15AM-TRIAL DATES- JUNE 9-12,2003 00316
03 25 2003 & JUNE 23-26, 2003-(3.25.03): 00316
03 26 2003 PLTS SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFT MUMMA II 00317
03 26 2003 FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00317
03 27 2003 DEFTS WITNESS AND EXHIBIT LIST: 00318
04 01 2003 PLTS REPLY TO DEFTS REQUEST TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS TO PLT 00319
04 01 2003 CONCERNING ATTORNEY FEE CLAIM: 00319
04 09 2003 PLTS NOTICE OF PRE-TRIAL MEETING: 00320
04 10 2003 P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(PLAINTIFF FIRST AMENDED 00321
04 10 2003 EXHIBIT LIST): 00321
04 10 2003 P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(PLAINTIFF NOTICE OF INTENT 00322
04 10 2003 TO REQUEST JUDICIAL NOTICE): 00322
04 10 2003 P-BARBARA MUMMA & LISA MORGAN-(PLAINTIFF FIRST NOTICE OF 00323
04 10 2003 INTENTION TO USE SUMMARIES AT TRIAL): 00323
04 21 2003 D-NOTICE OF HEARING 4/28/03 8:45 AM: 00324
04 21 2003 DEFENDANTS MUMMA'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO g oq 00325
04 21 2003 PERMIT HIM ACCESS TO ORIGINAL CORPORATE RECORDS: g??* r? 00325
04 23 2003 DEFENDANT, MUMMA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST 2 1 00326
04 23 2003 PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT MUMMA II FOLLOWING APPE 00326
04 23 2003 REVIEW: 00326
.
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S 1) 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
04 25 2003 PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF NON COMPLIANCE BY DEFENDANT ROBERT 00327
04 25 2003 MUMMA IT WITH ORDER DIERECTING PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND 00327
04 25 2003 SETTING TRIAL DATE: 00327
04 25 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION TO 00328
04 25 2003 DEFENDANT MUMMA'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO 00328
04 25 2003 PERMIT HIM ACCESS TO ORIGINAL CORPORATE RECORDS: 00328
04 28 2003 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF LISA MUMMA MORGAN IN OPPOSITION 00329
04 28 2003 TO DEFENDANT MUMMA'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S TO 00329
04 28 2003 PERMIT HIM ACCESS TO ORIGINAL CORPORATE RECORDS: 00329
04 28 2003 COURT MINUTES 4/28/03 8:45 AM: 00330
04 28 2003 DEFENDANTS MUMMA'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST 00331
04 28 2003 FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT MUMMA IT FOLLOWING 00331
04 28 2003 APPELLATE REVIEW: 00331
05 07 2003 PRETRIAL STIPULATION FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00332
05 07 2003 MOTION TO WITHDRAW OF WAMPLER,BUCHANAN,WALB.ER,CHABROW & 00333
05 07 2003 BANCIELLA PA: 00333
05 07 2003 ADDENDUM TO PRETRIAL STIPULATION FOLLOWING APPELLATE 00334
05 07 2003 REVIEW: 00334
05 07 2003 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES FOR 5.7.03 11:15AM-JUDGMENT ENTERED 00335
05 07 2003 1983-LEGAL ISSUES (OF COSTS)-TO BE NOTICED: 00335
05 08 2003 AMENDED CEERTIFICATE OF SERVICE MOTION TO WITHDRAW OF 00336
05 08 2003 WAMPLER,BUCHANAN,WALKER,CHABROW & BANCIELLA: 00336
05 12 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 5/22/03 8:45 AM 00337
05 12 2003 BOWDISH NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY: 00338
05 15 2003 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK DATED 5.6.03 FROM JAMES L S BOWDISH: 00339
05 15 2003 ORDER ON DEFT MUMMA'S MOTION TO COMPEL PLTS TO PERMIT HIM 00340
05 15 2003 ACCESS TO ORIGINAL CORPORATE RECORDS (5.12.03): 00340
05 19 2003 NOTICE OF FILING ADDRESS OF DEFENDANT MUMMA, FOR MOTION TO 00341
05 19 2003 WITHDRAW: 00341
05 22 2003 COURT MINUTES OF 5.22.03 HEARING: 00342
05 22 2003 ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW OF WAMPLER BUCHANAN WALKER 00343
05 22 2003 CHABROW & BANCIELLA PA-GRANTED-(5.22.03): 00343
06 09 2003 MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR. A NEW TRIAL 00344
06 09 2003 DUE TO RECENTLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION 00344
06 09 2003 AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT: 00344
06 18 2003 BOWISH NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY: 00345
09 02 2003 NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY: PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEY: 00346
10 02 2003 PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED WITNESS LIST: 00347
10 02 2003 PLAINTIFFS SECOND AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST: 00348
10 02 2003 PLAINTIFFS THIRD REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT 00349
10 02 2003 MUMMA IT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00349
10 03 2003 VERIFIED MOTION FOR ORDER SPECIALLY SETTING TRIAL DATE 00350
10 03 2003 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR OTHER RELIEF: 00350
10 03 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING (NO DATE OR TIME): 00351
10 15 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 10/20/03 8:45 AM: 00352
10 22 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 10/29/03 8:45 AM: 00353
10 22 2003 RE-NOTICE OF HEARING 10/29/03 8:45 AM: 5cocio 00354
10 22 2003 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SCHEDULE DEFENDANT ROBERT M Ca-
+5\ 00355
10
10 22
22 2003
2003 l
MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR NEW TRIAL ALONG WITH Ell
MOTIONS 00355
: 00355
10 27 2003 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISM 00356
10 27 2003 IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL DUE TO RECENT tica!a 00356
10 27 2003 DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION AND F 00356
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
10 27 2003 UPON THE COURT: 00356
10 29 2003 COURT MINUTES 10/29/03 8:45 AM: 00357
10 31 2003 PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION TO DEFENDANTS: 00358
10 31 2003 P-NOTICE OF TAKING VEDIO DEPOSITION OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ: 00359
10 31 2003 P-NOTICE OF TAKING VEDIO DEPOSITION OF ALAN SCOTT ESQ: 00360
11 05 2003 PLAINTIFFS AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO 00361
11 05 2003 DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR A NEW TRIAL DUE TO 00361
11 05 2003 RECENTLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION 00361
11 05 2003 AND FRAUD UPON THE COURT: 00361
11 05 2003 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED JORDAN FIELDS ESQ: 00362
11 05 2003 SUBPOENA RETURNED SERVED ALAN SCOTT ESQ: 00363
11 18 2003 LETTER TO MR MUMMA FROM JAMES LS BOWISH 11/17/03: 00364
11 18 2003 ORDER SETTING DOCKET CALL - 12/3/03 10:00AM: 00365
11 20 2003 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO APPOINT RECEIVER: 00366
11 21 2003 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HELD 00367
11 21 2003 10/29/03: 00367
11 21 2003 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 10/29/03: 00368
11 21 2003 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE: 00369
11 24 2003 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE: 00370
11 24 2003 MOTION TO PERMIT FOREIGN ATTORNEY TO APPEAR: 00371
11 25 2003 MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NEXT AVAILABLE TRIAL DOCKET: 00372
11 26 2003 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND RESPONSES TO PLTS REQUEST FOR 00373
11 26 2003 ADMISSIONS: 00373
12 03 2003 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES FOR 12.3.03 10:00AM-JUDGE ANGELOS 00374
12 03 2003 TO HEAR MOTION ON 12.11.03 3:OOPM COURTROOM B: 00374
12 08 2003 NOTICE OF HEARING 12/11/03 3:00 PM: 00375
12 10 2003 DEFENDANTS PRE-HEARING MEMORANDUM OF LAW: 00376
12 10 2003 NOTICE OF CANCELLING VIDEO DEPOSITION OF ALAN 00377
12 10 2003 SCOTT ESQ 12/9/03: 00377
12 10 2003 NOTICE OF CANCELLING VIDEO DEPOSITION OF JORDAN 00378
12 10 2003 FIELDS ESQ: 00378
12 11 2003 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF MOTION TO SCHEDULE DEFENDANT ROBERT 00379
12 11 2003 MUMMA IT'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR NEW TRIAL DUE TO 00379
12 11 2003 RECENTLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION & 00379
12 11 2003 FRAUD UPON THE COURT ALONG WITH OTHER MOTION-(12.11.03): 00379
12 11 2003 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF VERIFIED MOTION FOR ORDER SPECIALLY 00380
12 11 2003 SETTING TRIAL DATE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR OTHER 00380
12 11 2003 RELIEF-DENIED-(12.11.03): 00380
12 11 2003 AGREED ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PERMIT FOREIGN ATTORNEY 00381
12 11 2003 TO APPEAR-(12.11.03): 00381
12 11 2003 COURT MINUTES 12/11/03 3:30 PM: 00382
12 11 2003 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ALL PAPERS 00383
12 11 2003 FILED IN THIS ACTION AND ALL PAPERS FILED IN A RELATED 00383
12 11 2003 FLORIDA PROBATE PROCEEDING: 00383
12 17 2003 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO NON-BINDING ARBITRATION-12/15/03: 00384
12 17 2003 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM JAMES LS BOWDISH 11/19/03: 00385
12 23 2003 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FROM 12.11.03 3:30PM: 00386
01 14 2004 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM JAMES L S BOWDISH 11/5/03: 00387
01 20 2004 LETTER TO JUDGE ANGELOS FROM JAMES LS BOWDISH 1/12/0 00388
01 20 2004 ORDER
DEFENDANT
MUMMAIS
O?r
MO
T
ION TO
E
N
N
R
R
00389
1
O 20 2004 +
OR
FOR
A
NEW
TRIAL
DUE
TO
NTLY
D
I
?
v 00389
01 20 2004
r .,
EVIDENCE OF LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FRAUD UPON 00389
01 20 2004 THE COURT-1/16/04:
f
$ 00389
r
/
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 10
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
***:t********:t*a*****x*:t:rt:rx*:t*******xt:r:r****x*******:t**+******:t ;t*****:t :r*xrrx****:r
01 22 2004 NOTICE OF NON-BINDING ARBITRATION: 00390
02 10 2004 PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH NON-BINDING 00391
02 10 2004 ARBITRATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE APPOINTMENT 00391
02 10 2004 OF AN ARBITRATOR WHO WILL SERVE AT THE STATUTORY RATE: 00391
02 17 2004 NOTICE OF APPEAL-ORDER DATED 1.16.04: 00392
02 17 2004 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK: 00393
02 23 2004 P-NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED MOTION 00394
02 23 2004 TO DISPENSE WITH NON-BINDING ARBITRATION OR IN THE 00394
02 23 2004 ALTERNATIVE FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR WHO 00394
02 23 2004 WILL SERVE AT THE STATUTORY RATE: 00394
02 23 2004 P-AMENDED NOTICE OF NON-BINDING ARBITRATION HEARING: 00395
02 24 2004 OF APPEALS #4D04-649: 00396
02 25 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE / FOURTH DISTRICT COURT 00396
03 03 2004 AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL-ORDER DATED 1.16.04: 00397
03 03 2004 CERTIFICATE OF CLERK: 00398
03 22 2004 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR TRIAL PURSUANT TO RULE 1.820 (H): 00399
03 25 2004 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS HELD 00400
03 25 2004 12/11/03: 00400
03 25 2004 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 12/11/03: 00401
04 13 2004 ARBITRATION DECISION AND EXERPT OF PROCEEDINGS / 00402
04 13 2004 SEALED PER CIVIL RULES OF PROCEEDURE RULE # 1.820 (9)(3): 00402
04 16 2004 DEFENDANTS AMENDED MOTION FOR TRIAL PURSUANT TO 00403
04 16 2004 RULE 1.820(H): 00403
05 03 2004 PLAINTIFFS RENEWED NOTICE FOR TRIAL/COPY TO JUDGE SCHACK 00404
05 03 2004 NO ENVELOPES: 00404
06 14 2004 PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/ 00405
06 14 2004 APPELLANTS: 00405
06 16 2004 MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS ROBERT 00406
06 16 2004 MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC INC: 00406
06 17 2004 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO GUY & YUDIN LLP'S MOTION TO 00407
06 17 2004 WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS 00407
06 17 2004 ROBERT MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC INC: 00407
07 19 2004 LETTER TO VICTORIA FROM TERESA SCHRIVER DATED 5/22/04: 00408
08 06 2004 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY/WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE: 00409
08 19 2004 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY/WITHDRAWAL 00410
08 19 2004 OF APPEARANCE: 00410
08 23 2004 LETTER TO JUDGE ROBY AND JUDGE SCHACK FROM JAMES 00411
08 23 2004 LS BOWDISH DATED 7/27/04: 00411
10 05 2004 ORDER DIRECTING PRETRIAL PROCEDURE & SETTING TRIAL DATE-JT 00412
10 05 2004 DKT CALL 12/20/04 3:00 PM TRL PERIOD JANUARY - MARCH 2005: 00412
10 05 2004 (10/1/04): 00412
10 15 2004 NOTICE OF HEARING 11/2/04 8:45AM: 00413
10 20 2004 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH MEDIATION: 00414
10 27 2004 NOTICE OF HEARING 11/2/04 8:45 AM; 00415
11 02 2004 COURT MINUTES 11/2/04 8:45 AM: 00416
11 02 2004 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH MEDIATION 00417
11 02 2004 (11/2/04): 00417
11 02 2004 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR i,-aolc\\00418
11 02 2004 DEFENDANTS MUMMA AND HIGH-SPEC INC (11/2/04): 00418
11 16 2004 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF PRETRIAL MEETING:! 0419
11 16 2004 PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED WITNESS LIST: 0420
11 29 2004 D-MOTION TO CONTINUE TO NEXT AVAILABLE TRIAL DOCKET goe00421
11 29 2004 OR ALTERNATIVELY MOTION TO STRIKE EXPERT WITNESSES aN< 00421
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 11
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D O C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
11 29 2004 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULES: 00421
12 06 2004 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING THE 00422
12 06 2004 OUTCOME OF APPEAL: 00422
12 09 2004 PLAINTIFFS AMENDED NOTICE OF PRETRIAL MEETING: 00423
12 13 2004 NOTICE OF HEARING 12/17/04 8:45 AM: 00424
12 13 2004 MOTION TO WITHDRAW: 00425
12 16 2004 NOTICE OF HEARING 12/21/04 8:45 AM: 00426
12 16 2004 PLAINTIFFS FIRST VERIFIED SUGGESTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE 00427
12 17 2004 WITH PRE-TRIAL ORDER: 00427
12 17 2004 MOTION TO DISMISS OR TO STAY (ROBERT M MUMMA II): 00428
12 17 2004 ORDER DENYING CHADWICK 0 BOGAR AND BRADLEY A SCHUTJER'S 00429
12 17 2004 MOTION TO WITHDRAW (12/17/04): 00429
12 17 2004 COURT MINUTES 12/17/04 8:45 AM: 00430
12 20 2004 DOCKET CALL COURT NOTES 12/20/04 3:00 PM 2 ON 00431
12 20 2004 3/7/05 @ 9:45 AM: 00431
12 20 2004 LETTER TO "BRAD"FROM KIRK S SOHONAGE DATED 12/17/04: 00432
12 27 2004 RENEWED MOTION TO WITHDRAW: 00433
12 27 2004 NOTICE OF HEARING UMC 1/4/05 8:45 AM: 00434
01 06 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM JAMES LS BOWDISH DATED 00435
01 06 2005 12/28/04: 00435
01 06 2005 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: 00436
01 06 2005 RE-NOTICE OF HEARING 1/13/05 8:45 AM: 00437
01 06 2005 ORDER ON DOCKET CALL (1/5/05): 00438
01 10 2005 NOTICE OF TAKING VIDEO DEPOSITION OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ: 00439
01 10 2005 VERIFIED MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSIONS: 00440
01 13 2005 COURT MINUTES 1/13/05 8:45 AM: 00441
01 13 2005 ORDER ON RENEWED MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY ATTORNEYS 00442
01 13 2005 CHADWICK 0 BOGAR & BRADLEY A SCHUTJER (UN-SIGNED): 00442
01 27 2005 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MUMMA'S MOTION TO 00443
01 27 2005 DISMISS/STAY: 00443
01 27 2005 COURT MINUTES 1/27/05 8:45 AM: 00444
02 11 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM DARYL CHRISTOPHER DATEED 00445
02 11 2005 1-19-05: 00445
02 11 2005 MEMO TO ROBERT MUMMA FROM VICTORIA DATEXCD 2-9-05: 00446
02 11 2005 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR 00447
02 11 2005 SANCTIONS FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: 00447
02 11 2005 MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETION OF THE DEPOSITION 00448
02 11 2005 OF JORDAN FIELDS: 00448
02 16 2005 NOTICE OF FILING LIST OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS FROM FILES 00449
02 16 2005 OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ: 00449
02 22 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ROBERT M MUMMA II DATED 00450
02 22 2005 2.2.05: 00450
02 22 2005 NOTICE TO CANCEL TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER: 00451
02 22 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ROBERT M MUMMA II DATED 00452
02 22 2005 2.18.05: 00452
02 22 2005 ORDER CANCELLING THE TRIAL UNTIL THE APPEAL IN THIS 00453
02 22 2005 CASE IS DECIDED - DENIED-UNSIGHNED: 00453
02 24 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM DARYL CHRISTOPHER DATED -
1 c 00454
02 24 2005 2.14.05: `PC1
o ? 00454
"
02 24 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM DARYL CHRISTOPHER DATED ° I
l«00455
02 24 2005 2.14.05: * n? 00455
J
02 24 2005 FAX MEMO TO ROBERT MUMMA FRON VICTORIA DATED 2.9.05- Q°100456
02 24 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM JAMES LS BOWDISH DATED 00457
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH[ JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 12
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
02 24 2005 2.10.05: 00457
02 25 2005 LETTER TO MS MARDIS FROM ROBERT M MUMMA IT DATED 2.08.05: 00458
02 25 2005 COURT MINUTES 2.25.05 8:45 AM: 00459
02 25 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ROBERT M MUMMA IT 00460
02 25 2005 DATED 2.18.05: 00460
02 25 2005 ORDER ON ROBERT M MUMMA IT'S NOTICE TO CONTINUE TRIAL 00461
02 25 2005 PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER - 2.25.05: 00461
02 28 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ROBERT M MUMMA IT DATED 00462
02 28 2005 2.24.05: 00462
02 28 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING 2.25.05 8:45 AM: 00463
03 07 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM ROBERT M MUMMA IT DATED 00464
03 07 2005 2.24.05: 00464
03 07 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE SCHACK FROM DARYL CHRISTOPHER DATED 00465
03 07 2005 2.14.05: 00465
05 02 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING 7.14.05 9:30 AM: 00466
05 05 2005 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE 00467
05 05 2005 CONTINUATION OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQS DEPOSITION & MOTION FOR 00467
05 05 2005 SANCTIONS AGAINST ROBERT MUMMA II: 00467
05 05 2005 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT OF JORDAN FILERS ESQS JANUARY 00468
05 05 2005 26 2005 DEPOSITION: 00468
05 05 2005 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ 1.26.05: 00469
05 12 2005 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ORDER - GRANTED 00470
05 12 2005 5.11.05: 00470
05 23 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING UMC- ON-5.31.05 AT 8:30AM: 00472
05 23 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING UMC ON-5.31.05 AT 8:30AM: 00473
05 25 2005 P-BARBARA & LISA MUMMA-PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL 00474
05 25 2005 PARTY PLAINTIFFS: 00474
05 25 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING ON-5.31.05 AT 8:30AM: 00475
05 31 2005 COURT MINUTES OF 5.31.05 HEARING: 00476
05 31 2005 ORDER ON RENEWED MOTION TO WITHDRAW FILED BY ATTORNEY 00477
05 31 2005 CHADWICK 0 BOGAR & BRADLEY A SCHUTJER: 00477
06 10 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING ON-7.14.05 AT 11:30AM: 00478
06 13 2005 ROBERT M MUMMA IT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ADD 00479
06 13 2005 ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFFS: 00479
06 20 2005 ORDER OF THE FOURTH DISTRICT COUT OF APPEAL: 00480
06 29 2005 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AS TO THE 00481
06 29 2005 CONTINUATION OF JORDAN FIELDS, ESQ'S DEPOSITION AND MOTION 00481
06 29 2005 FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ROBERT MUMMA II: 00481
07 11 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 7.14.05 @ 9:30AM: 00482
07 11 2005 MANDATE AND OPINION ATTACHED-AFFIRMED : 00483
07 13 2005 PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT HIGH SPEC 00484
07 13 2005 INC REQUEST COURT TO ENTER DEFAULT: 00484
07 13 2005 PLAINTIFFS SECOND RENEWED NOTICE OF TRIAL: 00485
07 14 2005 COURT MINUTES OF HEARIN ON 7.14.05 9:30AM: 00486
07 14 2005 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS 00487
07 14 2005 MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS 00487
07 14 2005 FOR THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE: 00487
07 15 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING ON 8.15.05 8:30AM: o`i" ? 9^ 0488
07 27 2005 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE SUBMITTED BY ARNOLD D LEVINE: a 41 0489
07 27 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLETION OF
0490
07 27 2005 DEPOSITION OF JORDAN FIELDS,ESQ,DEFENDANTS MOTIOT 0490
P0490
07 27 2005 PRODCUTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR SANCTIONS FOR THE i07 27 2005 OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 0 00490
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 13
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
07 27 2005 ORDER AS TO THE CONTINUANCE OF JORDAN FIELDS ESQ DEPOSITION 00490
07 27 2005 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST ROBERT MUMMA II AND PLAINTIFFS 00490
07 27 2005 MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFFS 7.27.05: 00490
08 05 2005 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT F PROCEEDINGS FILED: 00491
08 08 2005 P-BARBARA MCK MUMMA-PLAINTIFF MOTION TO ASSESS ATTORNEY 00492
08 08 2005 FEES ON THIRD APPEAL: 00492
08 12 2005 PLAINTIFFS SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THIS ACTION - 7.31.05: 00493
08 15 2005 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR HIGH SPEC INC: 00494
08 15 2005 REOPEN FEE EXEMPT: 00494
08 15 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 8.15.05@8:30AM: 00495
08 16 2005 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL 10.24.05-10.28.05-DOCKET CALL 00496
08 16 2005 9.15.05 @ 1:30PM SIGNED8.15.05: 00496
08 18 2005 AMENDED NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING SET FOR 8.25.05@8:30AM: 00497
08 18 2005 NOTICE OF TELEPHONE HEARING SET FOR 8.25.05@8:30AM: 00498
08 22 2005 APPEAL VOLUME S RETURNED VOLUMES 1-3 00499
08 25 2005 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF PRETRIAL MEETING: 00500
08 25 2005 FROM 8.25.05@8:30AM: 00501
08 25 2005 ORDER ON LEVINE MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT 00503
08 25 2005 HIGH-SPEC INC-8.25.05: 00503
08 25 2005 PLAINTIFFS THIRD MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH MEDIATION 00504
08 25 2005 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TAKE TELEPHONE DEPOSITIONS OF JOSEPH 00505
08 25 2005 O'CONNOR AND BRADY GREEN IN PENNSYLVANIA: 00505
08 29 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 9.1.05@8:30AM: 00506
08 29 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 9.12.05@9:30AM: 00507
08 29 2005 PLAINTIFFS CORRECTED NOTICE OF PRETRIAL MEETING: 00508
08 29 2005 FIRST AFFIDAVIT OF TERESA SCHRIVER: 00509
09 01 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE MAKEMSON FROM ROBERT M MUMMA II- 8.22.05: 00510
09 01 2005 COURT MINUTES 9.1.05 8:30AM: 00511
09 01 2005 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS THIRD MOTION TO DISPENSE WITH MEDIATION 00512
09 01 2005 GRANTED 9.1.05: 00512
09 01 2005 SECOND AFFIDAVIT OF TERESA SCHRIVER: 00513
09 06 2005 PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM ON STANDING AND PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF 00514
09 06 2005 THEIR MOTION TO ADD PARTIES PLAINTIFF: 00514
09 09 2005 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:OF 00515
09 12 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 9.12.05@9:30AM : 00516
09 12 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA II'S MOTION FOR 00517
09 12 2005 CONTINUANCE OF HEARING DENIED -9.12.05: 00517
09 12 2005 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TAKE TELEPHONE DEPOSITIONS OF 00518
09 12 2005 JOSEPH O'CONNOR AND BRADY GREEN IN PENNSYLVANIA-9.12.05: 00518
09 12 2005 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARTY PLAINTIFF 00519
09 12 2005 GRANTED 9.12.05: 00519
09 12 2005 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 00520
09 12 2005 MUMMA'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 9.12.05 HEARING: 00520
09 13 2005 DEFENDANTS AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY GARY 00521
09 13 2005 BROOKMYER: 00521
09 14 2005 PLAINTIFFS SECOND NOTICE OF INTENTION TO USE SUMMAR .Y oR 00522
09 14 2005 TRIAL: 1 00522
09 15 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 9.15.05@1:30PM: ire _ tr 00523
09 19 2005 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY STANLEY DALE KLETT J fL4B 00524
09 19 2005 OF ROBERT M MUMMA: bw 00524
09 19 2005 APPEARANCE BY TRUSTEES OF RESIDUARY TRUST AND CONSE 00525
09 19 2005 PLAINTIFFS ACTIONS: 00525
09 23 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA MOTION FOR REHEARING: 00526
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 14
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
10 05 2005 LETTER TO JUDGE MAKEMSON FROM ROBERT MUMMA II DATED 8.15.05: 00527
10 05 2005 POSITION STATEMENT OF ROBERT M MUMMA II ON THE HISTORY OF 00528
10 05 2005 THIS LITIGATION: 00528
10 05 2005 DEFENDANTS REQUEST TO PRODUCE: 00529
10 05 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT MUMMA'S NOTICE OF SERVING EXPERT 00530
10 05 2005 INTERROGATORIES: 00530
10 05 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME: 00531
10 06 2005 ORDER SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL GRANTED 10.6.05: 00532
10 12 2005 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF FILING SECOND ADDENDUM TO PRETRIAL 00533
10 12 2005 STIPULATION FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00533
10 12 2005 SECOND ADDENDUM TO PRETRIAL STIPULATION FOLLOWING APPELLATE 00534
10 12 2005 REVIEW: 00534
10 12 2005 PLAINTIFFS SECOND VERIFIED MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND 00535
10 12 2005 SUGGESTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE: 00535
10 12 2005 PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED SUGGESTION OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH 8.5.05 00536
10 12 2005 ORDER SETTING DOCKET CALL AND PRETRIAL PROCEDURE AND MOTION 00536
10 12 2005 FOR RELIEF: 00536
10 17 2005 BROOKMYER HOCHMAN PROBST & NADEAU PA'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW 00537
10 17 2005 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING SET FOR 10.21.05@8:30AM: 00538
10 19 2005 D-ROBERT MUMMA II-MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: 00539
10 19 2005 P-ROBERT MUMMA II-MOTION TO EXTEND PRETRIAL, DEADLINES: 00540
10 19 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING ON-10.28.05 AT 8:30AM: 00541
10 20 2005 PLAINTIFFS CROSS-NOTICE OF HEARING AND VERIFIED OBJECTION TO 00542
10 20 2005 OTHER MOTIONS: 00542
10 21 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 10.21.05@8:30AM: 00543
10 21 2005 ORDER ON BROOKMYER HOCHMAN PROBST & NADEAU PA'S MOTION TO 00544
10 21 2005 WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS HIGH-SPEC INC GRANTED 00544
10 21 2005 10.21.05: 00544
10 27 2005 AFFIDAVIT OF JOEL C HOPKINS: 00545
10 28 2005 COURT MINUTES 10.28.05 8:30AM: 00546
10 28 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA IIS MOTION TO SHORTEN 00547
10 28 2005 TIME-MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE-10.28.05: 00547
10 28 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA IIS MOTION TO EXTEND 00548
10 28 2005 PRETRIAL DEADLINES-MOTION IS GRANTED-DEADLINE EXTENDED 00548
10 28 2005 UNTIL 11.15.05-10.28.05 00548
10 28 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA IIS MOTION TO CONTINUE 00549
10 28 2005 TRIAL-DENIED-ANY ISSUE OR TIME PROBLEM WAS SELF CREATED 00549
10 28 2005 BY MR. MUMMA'S ACTIONS OR INACTIONS 10.28.05: 00549
11 01 2005 AFFIDAVIT OF JOEL C HOPKINS: 00550
11 01 2005 ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS: 00551
11 02 2005 ORDER DETERMINING REMAINING ISSUES AND RULING ON PENDING 00552
11 02 2005 MOTIONS GRANTED 10.31.05: 00552
11 10 2005 ORDER APPROVING DEFENDANT HIGH-SPEC INC'S MOTION FOR 00553
11 10 2005 EXTENSION OF TIME TO RETAIN COUNSEL GRANTED 11.7.05: 00553
11 15 2005 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY ANDREW A PINEIRO ON BEHALF OF 00554
11 15 2005 DEFENDANT HIGH-SPEC INC: 00554
11 17 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA TI'S WITNESS LIST: 00555
11 17 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA INT'S EXHIBIT LIST:
--- 00556
11 17 2005 ,
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR HIGH-SPEC INClie 00557
11 17 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 11.21.05@8:30AM: 00558
11 18 2005 DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL: sco/?
? 00559
11 18 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 11.21.05@8:30AM: b
? 00560
11 21 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 11.21.05@8:30AM:y
4°Q 00561
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 15
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
11 21 2005 ORDER ON MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR HIGH-SPEC INC 00562
11 21 2005 GRANTED 11.21.05: 00562
11 21 2005 ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL -11.21.05: 00563
11 21 2005 PLAINTIFFS INFORMAL ANSWERS TO EXPERT WITNESS 00564
11 21 2005 INTERROGATORIES: 00564
11 21 2005 AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT 00565
11 21 2005 MUMMA'S RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF NOVEMBER 28-29 00565
11 21 2005 TRIAL/FINAL HEARING: 00565
11 21 2005 PLAINTIFFS AMENDED INFORMAL ANSWERS TO EXPERT WITNESS 00566
11 21 2005 INTERROGATORIES: 00566
11 22 2005 PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT LIST: 00567
11 22 2005 PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST: 00568
11 22 2005 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 11.28.05@9:30AM: 00569
11 22 2005 PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT HIGH- 00570
11 22 2005 SPEC INC: 00570
11 22 2005 CORRECTION TO AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL IN OPPOSITION 00571
11 22 2005 TO DEFENDANT MUMMA'S RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF 00571
11 22 2005 11.28-29 TRIAL /FINAL HEARING: 00571
11 23 2005 PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF AMENDING FOURTH AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST: 00572
11 23 2005 PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST: 00573
11 28 2005 PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MUMMA'S MOTION TO 00574
11 28 2005 DISMISS/STAY: 00574
11 28 2005 DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA II'S AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST: 00575
11 28 2005 DEFENDANT MOTION TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE: 00576
11 28 2005 DEFENDANT OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS: 00577
11 28 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM 11.28.05: 00578
11 28 2005 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT 00579
11 28 2005 HIGH-SPEC INC-GRANTED -11.28.05: 00579
11 29 2005 COURT MINUTES FROM11.29.05@9:30AM: 00580
11 29 2005 ORDER ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA II'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR 00581
11 29 2005 STAY DENIED-11.29.05: 00581
12 08 2005 ORIGINAL EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS FROM 11.29.05: 00582
12 08 2005 DEFENDANTS ANSWER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUTNERCLAIM 00583
12 28 2005 NON-FINAL ORDER ON INTEREST ISSUE-12.22.05: 00584
01 06 2006 DEFENDANT ROBERT MUMMA II MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF 00585
01 06 2006 NONFINAL ORDER DETERMINING INTEREST: 00585
01 13 2006 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SCHEDULE CONTINUATION OF HEARING ON 00586
01 13 2006 ATTORNEYS FEES & COSTS: 00586
01 13 2006 NOTICE OF HEARING 1.25.06 8:30AM: 00587
01 17 2006 EVIDENCE FILED IN CASE FILE-DEFTS-FILED IN COURT 11.29.05: 00588
01 17 2006 EVIDENCE FILED IN CASE FILE FROM TRIAL DATE 11.29.05: 00589
01 19 2006 NOTICE OF HEARING 1.25.06 8:30AM: 00590
01 19 2006 MOTION TO WITHDRAW: 00591
01 20 2006 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF NON FINAL 00592
01 20 2006 ORDER DETERMINING INTEREST-DENIED-1.20.06: 00592
01 23 2006 PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MUMMA'S MOTION FOR 00593
01 23 2006 RECONSIDERATION OF NONFINAL ORDER DETERMINING INTEREST AND 00593
01 23 2006 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT:/
"-" 00593
Ol
25
2006 T
G
Cp
PLAINTIFFS VERIFIED RESPONSE TO STANLEY DALE KLETT af•
MF
00594
01 25 2006 RUTHERFORD MULHALL PA'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS CO
#t 00594
01 25 2006 DEFENDANTS ROBERT MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC INC: ; •
. 00594
01 25 2006 Q
COURT MINUTES FROM 1.25.06@8:30AM: ° 00595
01 25 2006 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR D 00596
IN THE CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY FLORIDA
(cvprtcpd)
Run: 04 03 2006
Case Number: 89000503CA
Page: 16
C I V I L C A S E P R O G R E S S D 0 C K E T
Date Docket Description Number
01 25 2006 ROBERT M MUMMAII 1.25.06: 00596
Ol 31 2006 ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO ENTER 00597
01 31 2006 FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTED 1.24.06: 00597
02 02 2006 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA'S MOTION TO STAY 00598
02 02 2006 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS DENIED -2.1.06: 00598
02 09 2006 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY 00599
02 09 2006 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON DEFENDANT ROBERT M MUMMA II: 00599
02 17 2006 AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW -2/17/06: 00600
02 27 2006 FAXED COPY OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDED FINAL 00601
02 27 2006 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00601
02 28 2006 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDED FINAL 00602
02 28 2006 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00602
03 03 2006 LETTER TO JUDGE MAKEMSON FROM ROBERT MUMMA II DATED 2.21.06: 00603
03 06 2006 FAXED COPY OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF' AMENDED FINAL 00604
03 06 2006 JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00604
03 06 2006 FAXED COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 5.3.06@9:30AM: 00605
03 08 2006 FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW: 00606
03 08 2006 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTON FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AMENDED 00607
03 08 2006 FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW DENIED -3.6.06: 00607
03 16 2006 MAIL RETURNED REFUSED BY ROBERT M MUMMA: 00609
03 16 2006 MAIL RETURNED REFUSED BY ROBERT M MUMMA INDIVIDUALLY: 00610
03 20 2006 NOTICE OF APPEAL - ORDER DATED 2.17.06: 00611
03 31 2006 4TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-4DC06-1206: 00612
03 06 2008 NOTICE OF HEARING SET FOR 5.3.06@9:30AM: 00608
** End of Report **
SIAftOh KUHIJk
MARTIN COUNTY UIT COG
/GJ,...... A?,
THIS IS TO C RTIFY 1'HA'{ THE `/ a +
POREGOINGPAGE5ISATRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF 1 HC ORIGiNAI. l AL?? ....... o
MAR A EWING, GLERN I •. N +Fy
P.C
BY:
DATE.
RECEIVED
APR 13 2006
M DW(`
/°,b l+ L
r__ k
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.: 06 - CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AFFIDAVIT PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. § 4306
AND NOW, comes No V. Otto III, Esquire, of the law firm MARTSON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS & OTTO, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and in support of their Praecipe to Transfer Florida
Judgment Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306, swears and affirms under the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §
4904 the following:
The document titled Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review is a true,
accurate, and certified copy ofthe judgment that was entered in the above-captioned case in the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court of Martin County, Florida on February 17, 2006.
2. The same judgment is valid, enforceable, and unsatisfied and is thus qualified for
domestication in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By:
No V. Otto III, Esquire
Sworn to before me a Notary Public this
A y of 2006
Notary Public
NOTARIAL SEAL
VICTORIA L. OTTO, NOTARY PUBLIC CUMBERLA
ERLANO DEC. 2 COUNT
SLE BO MMIISSIOA V ES
006Y
CU" CNIY CO
iA.,
1?,I L I+ ?
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.: 06 - CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF ADDRESSES PURSUANT TO 42 PA.C.S.A. § 4306
AND NOW, comes George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, ofthe law firm MARTSON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS & OTTO, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and in support of their Praecipe to Transfer Florida
Judgment Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 4306, swears and affirms under the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §
4904 the following:
That the address of Robert Mumma, II, who is the judgment debtor in the above-captioned
case, is 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996.
2. That the address of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes
ofthe Estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased, who are the judgment creditors in the above-captioned
case, is c/o Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013.
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: ?.
George B. Faller, Jr., Esq ire
Sworn to before m a No?ary Public this
/f --day o 2006
Notary Public
IC2006
RESNE
C1
??? ?
???. ??? t:
??_.
??
.._
?
"
.
.
t
/'?
?j
?l
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executors
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
vs.
ROBERT M. MUMMA H and HIGH-SPEC,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
PETITION TO STRIKE FOREIGN JUDGMENT
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY EXECUTION
Defendants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc. (collectively
"Defendants"), by their attorneys, Pepper Hamilton LLP, petition this Court to strike the above-
referenced foreign judgment, or in the alternative to stay the execution of that foreign judgment
and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. On or about April 19, 2006, Plaintiffs filed with the Cumberland County
Prothonotary a praecipe to transfer an Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review
("Amended Judgment") pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
("UEFJA"), 42 Pa. C.S.A. §4306.
2. The UEFJA defines a foreign judgment as a judgment requiring the
payment of money "which is entitled to full faith and credit in this Commonwealth." 42 Pa.
C.S.A. § 4306(f).
3. The Amended Judgment, attached as Exhibit A, was entered in favor of
High-Spec, Inc. on February 17, 2006, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Martin County, Florida in a shareholders derivative lawsuit brought by Barbara McK.
Mumma and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the Residuary Trust under the Last Will of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased and High-Spec, Inc., against Robert M. Mumma H and High-Spec, Inc.
4. The Amended Judgment partially modifies an earlier judgment but does
not finally determine the amount of liability. (See Amended Judgment, pages 11 and 12).
5. The Amended Judgment provides a formula for the court to arrive at a
final judgment amount, after the Florida court determines certain amounts in the future.
6. Specifically, paragraph 29 of the order refers to a "formula and plan of
distribution of assets" that the Florida court adopts based on amounts of "interest and the costs
and attorneys' fees to be determined in a separate final judgment to be entered in the future."
(emphasis added) (Amended Judgment, page 10).
7. Not only does the Florida court only adopt a formula but paragraph 30 of
the order provides that "[t]he Court also retains jurisdiction to enter orders making such further
adjustments and corrections as are necessary to paragraph 29 [the paragraph outlining the
amounts of the judgment] of this Amended Final Judgment and to complete and adjust those
items in that paragraph left to be determined or adjusted after this Court's [sic] makes a final
decision on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs." (Amended Judgment, page 13).
-2-
8. As outlined by the Florida court's order, many of the amounts, if listed at
all, remain subject to adjustment or to be determined. (See Amended Judgment, pages 11 and
12).
9. For example, on page 12 of the order, the amount owed by Robert
Mumma II to respective parties is specified by the Court as "to be determined." (Amended
Judgment, page 12).
10. Based on the plain language of the Florida court's order, the Florida court
has retained jurisdiction to complete and adjust the items that are left to be determined and will
then use the formula it outlined to determine the amount of the final judgment.
11. Because the Florida judgment is not a final judgment, it is not entitled to
Full Faith and Credit by the Courts of this Commonwealth. See Everson v. Everson, 431 A.2d
889, 894 (Pa. 1981) (judgment will not be enforced in second state until the amount of judgment
has been finally determined); Clark v. Clark, 714 A.2d 427, 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (noting
that Full Faith and Credit Clause only applies to final orders and therefore does not apply to
modifiable support orders).
12. Even if this Court does not strike the judgment, execution of the judgment
should be stayed pending the resolution of the action pending in this Court, captioned Robert M.
Mumma II vs. The Estate of Robert M. Mumma, et al., No. 04-6183 Civil Term ("Cumberland
County Action").
13. In that action, Robert M. Mumma II has asked this Court to determine that
he is the sole shareholder of High-Spec, Inc. based on a restrictive share agreement Robert M.
Mumma and Robert M. Mumma II signed in 1985.
-3-
14. That Share Restrictive Agreement required the Estate of Robert M.
Mumma II to sell its shares back to High-Spec, Inc. or to Robert M. Mumma II.
15. If Mr. Mumma is successful is the Cumberland County Action he will be
the sole shareholder of High-Spec, Inc.
16. Permitting the Estate to proceed with the execution of the judgment it filed
would permit the Estate to benefit when the Estate should not even be a shareholder.
17. If Mr. Mumma is successful in the Cumberland County Action, then even
if the Florida court ultimately enters a final judgment against Mr. Mumma, he will be required to
pay a corporation in which he is the sole shareholder.
18. Thus, execution on the Amended Judgment prior to a final judgment in the
Cumberland County Action would be unnecessary and would prejudice Mr. Mumma.
19. Furthermore, permitting execution on the Amended Judgment now would
permit the Estate of Robert M. Mumma to obtain funds through High-Spec, Inc. that it may not
be entitled to and would prejudice High-Spec, Inc. by forcing High-Spec, Inc. to pay persons
who may not even be shareholders.
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and to be set forth in a brief if
required by the Court, Defendant Robert M. Mumma II, requests that this Court strike the
judgment filed under docket 06-2197 or, in the alternative, stay the execution of the foreign
judgment until this Court enters a final order in Robert M. Mumma II vs. The Estate of Robert
M. Mumma, et al., No. 04-6183 Civil Term.
-4-
Respectfully submitted,
V' cen V. Carissimi (PA 42227)
P P HAMILTON LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
(215) 981-4351
Justin G. Weber (PA 89266)
PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
200 One Keystone Plaza
North Front and Market Streets
Post Office Box 1181
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181
(717) 255-1170
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: May 25, 2006 Robert M. Mumma II
-5-
Bch; bit A
i
0 •
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
BARBARA McIC Mumma and
LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the Residuary
Trust under the Last Will of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a
dissolved Florida corporation,
CASE NO.: 89-503 CA
JUDGE: Robert Makemson
Plaintiffs,
VS.
ROBERT MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants.
Irn :J ...
?3 M
...
n ti 1.:
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT FOLLOWING APPELLATE REVIEW
On November 28 and 29, 2005 a final•hearing, with evidence, was held before this Court on
those matters remaining fordecision in this case following appellate review. Pursuant to this Court's
Order Determining Remaining Issues and Ruling on Pending Motions dated October 31, 2005, the
only matters remaining for decision at the time of the final hearing were: (1) Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss or Stay dated December 16, 2004; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Final Judgment
Following Appellate Review, which sought an award of interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and an
amended final judgment consistent with appellate review; (3) Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees;
(4) Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint a Receiver. The Court, having received evidence and heard
testimony and argument on these matters, finds and determines that the following Amended Final
Judgment should be entered by this Court as follows:
I.
HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION
1. On July 26, 1993, this Court, through Judge Marc Cianca, entered a Final Judgment
which dissolved the Defendant Florida Corporation, High-Spec, Inc. and determined among other
things that Defendant Robert Mumma, II caused the illegal distribution of certain real property to
himself and is liable to High-Spec, Inc. in the amount of 5450,000.00 plus prejudgment interest from
December 21, 1989 in the amount of S 189,887.67.
N
»Q
??la
V
? P
o
g
• u'Tco AG G ` ` ' ..
* ? x
t? N!
Book2115/Page1691 CFN#1913171 Page 1 of 13
0 0
2. The Court also required the directors of High-Spec, Inc. to prepare a final accounting
and wind up and liquidate the corporation.
3. By order on Defendants' Motion for New Trial or Rehearing to Alter or Amend
Judgment dated February 28, 1994, the Court suspended the running of interest on the prior July 26,
1993 Final Judgment and made certain amendments to debts created for the acquisition of the
corporation's assets, finding the corporation was owed the following debts created for the acquisition
of the corporation's assets:
A. To the Estate of Robert Mumma, Sr., the amount of $94,526.51;
B. To Mumma Realty Associates the amount of $330,320.91;
C. To Robert M. Mumma, II, the amount of $415,229.28.
4. By Order Re: Case Disposition dated June 15, 1998p this Court entered a final order
closing further proceedings in this action on the grounds that the parties did not pursue the case
diligently.
5. Both parties filed appeals from the June 15, 1998 order.
6. By an opinion dated June 9, 1999 entered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal of
the State of Florida in Mumma Y. Mumma_ 734 So.2d 571 (Fla 4" DCA 1999) the appellate court
reversed the order of Judge Schack closing the case and determined that the 1993 partial Final
Judgment remains in force and need not be revisited on remand. The appellate court also determined
that the only issues left to be decided concerned the final accounting and winding up of the
corporation as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
7. By separate order also dated June 9,1999, the appellate court granted the Motion by
Lisa Mumma Morgan and Barbara McK. Mumma, individually and as Co-Executrixes of the Estate
of Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and on behalf of High-Spec, Inc. for attorneys' foes on appeal
conditioned upon them being prevailing parties on the merits.
8. Following remand, a trial was held on the remaining issues identified by the appellate
court in its opinion. During this time, the trial transcript shows that Defendant Robert Mtunma's
counsel raised, for the first time, the existence of a shareholder's agreement which Judge Bryan
refused to entertain because it had not been raised in the 1993 trial. (2000 Trial Transcript, p. 126).
9. The trial resulted in a Final Judgment entered by Judge Bryan of this Court on March
15, 2000. The Final Judgment recited the entry of the Final Judgment of Judge Cigna in 1993 and
adopted previous findings of the Court.
10. The Final Judgment also determined various issues relating to the final accounting
2
V R
Book2115/Page1692 CFN#1913171 Page 2 of 13
of the corporation and distribution of the corporate assets.
It. In this 2000 Final Judgment, the Court declined to award interest on the judgment
subsequent to July 26, 1993 and denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees at both the appellate
and lower court levels.
12. Defendants filed an appeal from this Final Judgment, and Plaintiffs filed a cross-
appeal. In their brief, Defendants did not assign as error Judge Bryan's refusal to consider the
alleged shareholder's agreement in determining ownership by Mumma Sr's estate of 500% of the
shares of High-Spec, Inc. stock.
13. By an opinion dated March 28, 2001 entered by the Fourth District Court of Appeal
for the State of Florida in Mumma v. Mumma. 780 So.2d 1001(Fla. 41b DCA 2001), rev.dQ,p. 797
So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2001), the appellate court modified that portion of the March 15, 2000 Final
Judgment which suspended interest after the 1993 Final Judgment. The appellate court also
modified the trial court's order denying Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees for fees incurred in the
trial court and previous appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial court to determine such an
award.
14. The appellate court also issued a separate order awarding appellate attorneys' fees to
the Plaintiffs for this second appeal and ordered the trial court to determine the amount of these fees.
15. On April 27, 2001, Defendants filed a Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction to
the Supreme Court for review of the opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeal.
16. On October 5, 2001, the Supreme Court of Florida denied review and granted
Respondents' (i.e. Plaintiffs') Request for Attorneys' Fees on Appeal and made an award in the
amount of $2,500.00.
17. Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review
seeks the entry of an Amended Final Judgment consistent with the appellate decisions of the Fourth
District Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Florida in 2001 and specifically requests:
A. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the lower court proceedings;
B. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the first appeal from this Court's
1998 Order closing the case;
C. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered for lower court proceedings
following remand culminating in March 15, 2000 trial;
D. Reasonable attorneys' fees for services rendered in the appeal of the Court's March
15, 2000 Final Judgment;
3 ??RCwr
Book2115/Page1693 CFN#1913171 Page 3 of 13
E. Interest on the 1993 Final Judgment to the date of entry of the Amended Final
Judgment;
F. Reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,500.00 awarded by Supreme Court
of Florida in its October 5, 2001 decision;
G. Such further adjustment to the final accounting as may be appropriate in light of the
appellate decisions;
H. An award of costs as may be appropriate, including costs for all appellate work and
at the trial court;
18. On August 15, 2002, Plaintiffs served an Amendment to Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry
of Amended Final Judgment Following Appellate Review to request the award of prejudgment
interest on the attorneys' fees awarded by both the Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court of Florida from the time of the award of those fees in those appellate courts. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an Amended Motion for Attorney's Fees dated May 8, 2001 seeking lower court
and appellate attorneys' fees.
19. On November 18, 2003 Plaintiffs served their Motion for Appointment of a Receiver
to take possession of High-Spec's certificate of deposit funds in Pennsylvania and to pay the
corporate debts and make appropriate distributions according to the amended final judgment.
20. On June 6, 2003, Defendant Mumma II filed his Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for a New Trial Due to Recently Discovered Evidence of Lack of Jurisdiction and Fraud
Upon the Court. In his motion Defendant claimed that the Plaintiffs are not shareholders of High-
Spec, Inc. and alleged in paragraph 14 under "newly discovered evidence" that a shareholder's
agreement existed. By order entered January 16, 2004, Judge Angelos denied this motion.
Defendants Mumma and High-Spec, Inc. timely appealed. Their brief did not raise the shareholder's
agreement but instead argued on other grounds that the circuit court erred in denying the motion.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the January 16, 2004 order per curiam on May 11,
2005, and issued a mandate on July 8, 2005. The Fourth District also issued an order awarding
Plaintiffs their appellate attorneys' foes. Following remand Plaintiffs filed Plaintiffs' Motion to
Assess Attorneys' Fees on Third Appeal dated August 5, 2005.
21. On December 16, 2004, Defendant Mumma, acting pro se at the time, filed his
Motion to Dismiss or Stay in which he contended that this action should be dismissed because the
inventory in his father's ancillary estate in Florida, which the Court determines was dismissed in
1999, failed to include the shares of High-Spec, Inc. stock as an asset. He also alleged that the shares
of stock in High-Spec, Inc. which were distributed from his father's Pennsylvania estate to his
Residuary Trust on January 1, 2002, were subject to a shareholder's agreement, an unsigned copy
of which he attached to his motion. Defendant Mumma II had previously raised this shareholder's
agreement in the 2000 trial before Judge Bryan and again in his June 6, 2003 Motion to Dismiss.
4
Book21151Page1694 CFN#1913171 Page 4 of 13
0 9
He asked that this action be stayed pending the outcome of a related Pennsylvania court action he
had riled to determine the enforceability of this shareholder's agreement.
22. On May 24, 2005, Plaintiffs served their Motion to Add Additional Party Plaintiffs.
In this motion, they sought to add themselves as additional Plaintiffs in this action in their capacities
as Co-Trustees of Robert Mumma's Residuary Trust contained in his will. Their motion alleged that
the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr., had, on January 1, 2002, distributed its interest in the High-Spec,
Inc. shares to the decedent's Residuary Trust of which they were Co-Trustees. Because Defendant
Mumma had contended that Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes of this estate, lacked standing to maintain
this action, they sought to make the standing issue moot by joining themselves in their capacities as
Co-Trustees as well. This motion was granted by the Court, after which the Plaintiffs, as Co-
Trustees, filed their Appearance by Trustees of Residuary Trust and Consent to Plaintiffs' Actions
in which they consented to all actions of themselves as Co-Executrixes, the appointment of a
Receiver, the entry of an Amended Final Judgment, and to the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.
H.
AMENDED FINAL JUDGMENT
Defendant Robert Mumma's Motion to Dismiss or Stay was denied by this Court by order
entered at the hearing on November 29, 2005, and that denial is hereby confirmed. Defendant's
continued attempts to relitigate the shareholder status of the Plaintiffs based on allegations of an
existing shareholder's agreement are barred by res judicata, estoppel by judgment, and judicial
waiver by failing to raise on appeal this Court's refusal to consider the alleged shareholder's
agreement in the 2000 Final Judgment and the January 16, 2004 Order on Defendant Mumma's
Motion to Dismiss or for New Trial. Plaintiffs' Motion for Entry of Amended Final Judgment
Following Appellate Review, as amended, is granted. This Court hereby enters an Amended Final
Judgment awarding, among other things, attomeys' fees and costs to Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes
in accordance with previous decisions by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal and the Florida
Supreme Court for work done by Plaintiffs attorneys in this matter bah at the trial court level and
on appellate review, including work through the date of this order. However, because the hearing
on November 29, 2005 failed to conclude with all evidence necessary for the Court to adjudicate
Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs, this Courtreserves jurisdiction to enter a separate final judgment
determining the amount of costs and attorneys' fees upon conclusion of the evidentiary hearing on
costs and attorneys' fees to be scheduled in the future. Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes, are also
awarded interest on the 1993 Final Judgment as previously determined by this Court in its Non Final
Order on Interest Issue dated December 22, 2005. Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of a Receiver
is also granted. This Court's Final Judgment dated March 15, 2000 is hereby amended and restated,
and the following is hereby substituted as follows:
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
23. High- Spec. Inc. is hereby dissolved as a result of the shareholders being deadlocked
and the illegal distribution of a major corporate asset to Robert M. Mumma, II.
5
Book2115/Page1695 CFN#1913171
c?'c IT O
Page 5 of 13
0 0
24. Robert M. MummaII caused the illegal distribution of certain heal property to himself
and is liable to the corporation, High Spec, Inc. for said distribution in the amount of $450,000 plus
prejudgment interest at the rate of Twelve (12%) per annum from December 12,1989 until the date
of the entry of the original Final Judgment on July 26, 1993 in the amount of $189,887.67, for a total
sum due and owing on the Final Judgment as of July 26, 1993 of $639,887.67. ' Judge Cianca's
February 28, 1994 order suspending the running of interest on this judgment, which was approved
by this Court in its Final Judgment entered March 15, 2000, has since been modified on appeal to
allow for interest. Therefore, this sum of $639,887.67 shall constitute the "Judgment Sum."
Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes of the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr., deceased, on behalf of Plaintiff
High-Spec, Inc. shall recover this Judgment Sum from Defendant Robert Mumma II, individually,
whose Florida address is 6880 SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996-1968, and this Judgment Sum
shall bear interest from and after July 26, 1993 at the statutory rate applicable to the judgment when
entered in 1993 which, under §55.03, Fla. Star. (1993) was 12% per annum. The daily rate of post-
judgment interest at 12% per annum on the stun of $639,887.67 after July 26, 1993 is $210.374 per
day, and interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall continue from that date through the entry of this
Amended Final Judgment and thereafter on the unpaid balance of the Judgment Sum until paid in
full. The Clerk of this Court is hereby directed and ordered to issue a writ of execution forthwith
on the Judgment Sum plus all accrued interest to the date of this order. The address of Plaintiff Lisa
Mumma Morgan is 1140 N. Ocean Boulevard, Gulfstream, FL 33483-7230, and the address of
Plaintiff Barbara McK. Mumma is 4333 North Ocean Blvd., Apt D-55, Delray Beach, FL 33483.
The address of Plaintiff High-Spec, Inc. is c% Robert Mumma II, its sole surviving director, 6880
SE Harbor Circle, Stuart, FL 34996-1968 and also P.O. Box 58, Bowmansdale, PA 17008.
' This Court finds that in calculating the amount of the judgment on which post-
judgment interest runs, the prejudgment interest component becomes part of the single total sum
adjudged to be due, with post judgment interest accruing on the merged total. Qul?&
Engineered Installation. Inc. Y. Higley South. Inc_ 670 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 1996).
2 This Court is fully aware that §55.03, Florida Statutes, was amended effective
January 1, 1995 to require the Comptroller of the State of Florida to set interest rates on judgments
on an annual basis. After that statute took effect, annual rates of interest on judgments set by the
Comptroller of the State of Florida have fluctuated. However, the rate provided for by §55.03 in
1993 when the judgment in this action was entered was 12°x6 per annum. Because the judgment in
this action was entered before the effective date of the 1995 amendm=% the rate applicable at the
time of the judgment, i.e. 12% per annum, applies here despite the subsequent annual changes
announced by the Comptroller. See Beverly EnteMdses-Florida Inc. v. ftiloran 689 So. 2d 1230
(Fla. 5th DCA 1997). See also Gilmore v. Morrison 341 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)(holding
that where a money judgment is modified on appeal and the only action necessary in the trial court
is compliance with the mandate of the appellate court, interest on the judgment as modified runs
from the date of the original judgment.) Here, the 1993 final judgment awarding 5450,000 plus
$189,887.67 in prejudgment interest against Defendant Mumma II has never been reversed on appeal
other than to modify and correct Judge Bryan's failure to award interest on it and to award trial court
and appellate attorneys' fees in his 2000 Final Judgment.
6 w r
* ?G
r
Book2115/Page1696 CFN#1913171 Page 6 of 13
0 0
25. The corporation is liable for the following debts created for the acquisition of the
corporation's assets, real estate:
A. To the Estate of Robert Mumma Sr., the amount of $94,526.51;
B. To Mumma Realty Associates I, the amount of $330,329.91.
C. To Robert Mumma, II, $415,229.28.
26. The loans by Robert M. Mumma, II, or his controlled companies were used to build
his personal residence and am not valid corporate debts of High-Spec, Inc.
27.. At the November 28 and 29, 2005 final hearing, this Court also heard and received
evidence and arguments on Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Receiver dated November 13, 2003. Upon
the evidence presented and arguments of counsel, this Court determines that the appointment of a
Receiver is necessary pursuant to $607.1432, Fla. Stat. 2005 in order to liquidate the Certificate of
Deposit in the name of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. currently on deposit with M&T Bank in
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and to collect and receive from the Plaintiffs whatever Plaintiffs, in their
capacities ae Co-Executrixes, recover on the money judgment against Defendant Robert Mumma
II for $450,000 plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest, after Plaintiffs pay themselves such
attorneys' fees and costs as the Court may enter in a separate final judgment in the future. The
appointment of a Receiver is also needed to wind down and pay the debts and obligations of High-
Spec, Inc. and distribute its assets.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
a. April Hicks, an individual who is a member of the local accounting firm of Proctor,
Crook, and Crowder, is hereby appointed in this action as Receiver for High-Spec, Inc., a dissolved
Florida corporation.
b. The appointment of April Hicks as Receiver is subject to the condition precedent that
she file with the Clerk of this Court a copy of a fidelity bond in the sum of eight hundred thousand
dollars ($800,000) issued by a surety company licensed in the State of Florida and conditioned on
her faithful receipt and disposition of the funds and property of High-Spec, Inc. which come into her
possession, custody, and control as Receiver. The Receiver's fidelity bond shall be approved by the
Clerk of this Court or, if the Clerk fails to do so, by further order of this Court. Upon approval of
this fidelity bond by the Clerk or this Court of by this Court, April Hicks shall automatically be
authorized to perform her duties as Receiver without need for any further order of this Court.
C. The Receiver shall serve for compensation at her normal hourly rates, as they may
exist from time to time, plus the Receiver's attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, all of which are to
be paid from the assets of High-Spec, Inc. as a priority claim above all other debts and obligations
of High-Spec, Inc. and without the necessity of ftulher order of this Court approving same. The
Receiver's duties to report assets received by her shall be controlled by Rule 1.620 (b), Florida Rules
7 ?\QGU'T c?G
e
Oki
Book2115/Page1697 CFN#1913171 Page 7 of 13
0 0
of Civil Procedure or such later amendments to this Rule as may, from time to time, be adopted.
d. The assets of High-Spec, Inc. include, but are not necessarily limited to, that certain
certificate of deposit ("Certificate of Deposit") in an amount in excess of $833,332.46 in the name
of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. deposited with M&T Bank located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
together with whatever funds may be recovered by Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes and paid by them
to the Receiver on the money judgment entered against Defendant Robert Mumma, II in this action,
after Plaintiffs' pay the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr. such attorneys' fees and costs which may be
awarded in a subsequent and separate Final Judgment.
C. As to the Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank, Judge Marc Cianca entered an
order in this action dated May 27, 2003 in which he ordered that the funds in this Certificate of
Deposit (formerly at Dauphin Deposit Bank) should remain intact until the disposition of this action
and required Defendant Mumma 11 to comply with this order and with a similar order entered by the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania in No. 21 Equity 1993. Judge
Cianca's 1993 order is hereby modified to grant to the Receiver the sole and absolute authority to
demand and receive from M&T Bank, at the Receiver's sole discretion, all funds represented by this
Certificate of Deposit less any penalty for early withdrawal. No person, other than the Receiver, shall
be entitled to withdraw these funds from M&T Bank. M&T Bank, its successors or assigns, is
ordered to pay over to the Receiver all funds represented by this Certificate of Deposit and all other
funds, if any, at said bank in the name of High-Spec, Inc. and to provide to the Receiver all
information, if any, on the accounts of High-Spec, Inc. and the history of any accounts formerly in
the name of High4pec, Inc. which may have been closed In the event that the Receiver is unable
to collect the Certificate of Deposit at M&T Bank in the name of High-Spec, Inc. within a reasonable
period of time, or in the event that the bond premium for the Receiver must be paid in full before the
Receiver's bond is issued, Plaintiffs shall advance as a loan to the Receiver, all of the Receiver's
fees, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, including the cost for the Receiver's bond, that the
Receiver may have incurred to that point, and Plaintiffs shall be reimbursed by the Receiver for said
sums immediately upon the Receiver's liquidation of the Certificate of Deposit.
f. The Receiver of High-Spec, Inc. shall, in accordance with the final aoeounting and
plan of distribution set forth in the Amended Final Judgment, wind down and liquidate the
corporation's assets and pay its debts and obligations pursuant to Section 607.1405, Fla. Stat. (2005).
Should the Receiver determine that certain debts or obligations of High-Spec, Inc. owed by High-
Spec to third parties as set faith in this Amended Final Judgment no longer exist or exist at different
amounts than described in this Amended Final Judgment, or should the Receiver need further
clarification or orders from this Court in the wind-down process, the Receiver may seek further
instructions, guidance, or orders from this Court.
g. The Receiver shall have all powers enumerated under Section 607.1432, Fla. Stat.
(2005), including, but not limited to, the power to hire counsel in any State in which issues
pertaining to the winding up of the corporation may be concerned, including the States of Florida
and Pennsylvania.
8
Book2115/Page 1698 CFN#1913171 Page 8 of 13
•
h. All fees, costs, and expenses of the Receiver, together with all attorney's fees of the
Receiver, shall be deemed additional costs of this litigation and shall be taxed as subsequently
determined by this Court.
i. Defendant, Robert M. Mumma, U. individually and as sole surviving director of
Defendant High-Spec, Inc., is hereby ordered to fully and completely cooperate with and furnish to
the Receiver, at the request of the Receiver, all High-Spec, Inc. information within his knowledge
and all High-Spec, Inc. corporate records. documents, tax returns, bank statements, certificates of
deposit, and other documents and information on High-Spec, Inc. in said Defendant's possession,
custody, or control or in the possession, custody, or control of High-Spec, Inc. or its accountants and
attorneys. Defendant Mumma II, individually and as sole surviving directorof Defendant High-Spec,
Inc., shall likewise execute and deliver to the Receiver such further consents, forms, or other
instruments as may be requested by the Receiver in order to permit the Receiver to liquidate the
Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank or take possession of any other assets, accounts, or property
of High-Spec, Inc.
j. The Receiver shall take possession, custody and control over all assets of High-Spec,
Inc., including but not limited to bank accounts, certificates of deposit, and other assets, wherever
in the world they may be located. Plaintiffs, however, in their capacities as Co-Executrixes, and on
behalf of High-Spec, Inc., shall have the right to continue enforcement and collection of the Final
Judgment for damages against Defendant Robert Mumma H and to take all action appropriate in
connection therewith, including but not limited to post judgment collection proceedings in Florida
and domestication and collection of the final judgment in Pennsylvania and elsewhere as needed
until the judgment is collected in full. Upon collection of the Final Judgment for damages and the
payment to themselves as Co-Executrixes of such attorneys' fees and costs as may be subsequently
awarded, Plaintiffs, as Co-Executrixes shall account to the Receiver and turn over such additional
funds collected on the Final Judgment.
k. Upon liquidation by the Receiver of the assets of High-Spec, Inc. and upon the
payment of High-Spec, Inc's debts and obligations and the distribution of its assets, the Receiver's
duties shall and, and the Receiver may apply to this Court for her discharge and for the discharge
of the surety and termination and cancellation of the Receiver's bond. Until termination of the
receivership, this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enter such further orders as may be necessary and
proper during the wind down of High-Spec, Inc.
28. The debts owed by High-Spec, Inc. for Trade Payables, Interest on Pennsylvania Tax,
to the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mumma Realty Associates, I, and to Defendant Robert Mumma
II are not money judgments but rather a finding by Judge Cianca in 1993 as to debts which High-
Spec owed to creditors prior to liquidation of High-Spec, Ine.'s assets. None of these debts was
determined to bear interest, and, except for the money judgment against Defendant Robert Mumma
II which, consistent with appellate review, shall bear interest as determined in this Amended Final
Judgment, nothing in this Amended Final Judgment shall be construed as permitting interest to run
on these debts.
9
G?PGUI r c
G
Q7
y ?.
Book2115/Page1699 CFN#1913171 Page 9 of 13
0 0
29. Due to the appellate decisions affecting interest and attorneys' fees and costs, and this
Court's decision to appoint a Receiver, the final accounting and plan of distribution provided for in
paragraphs 7 and 8 of the March, 2000 Final Judgment is no longer accurate and must be adjusted
to be consistent with appellate review. Accordingly, those paragraphs of the 2000 Final Judgment,
are hereby amended to read as follows:
7. In accordance with appellate review and this Court's determination of the
amounts of interest and the costs and attorneys' fees to be determined in a separate final judgment
to be entered in the future, the following formula and plan of distribution of assets is adopted. This
plan assumes the collection of the Final Judgment in full by Plaintiffs as Co-Executrixes and the
liquidation of the Certificate of Deposit with M&T Bank. Appropriate adjustments must be made
on verification by the Receiver of the correct amounts of the Certificate of Deposit, the payment of
the Receiver's fees, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, adjustment of those items indicated below
that are subject to adjustment or verification, and Plaintiffs' post judgment interest, attorney's fees,
costs, and expenses.
Certificate of Deposit-Cash-Subject to
Change and Verification
Less: Outside Creditors to be Paid
Trade Payables-Subject to
Change and Verification
Pennsylvania Income Tax
Subject to Change and
Verification
Interest-Pennsylvania Tax
Estimated-Subject to Change
and Verification
Balance of Cash Available to
Distribute - Subject to Change
Pay to: Estate of Robert M. Mumma
Principal
Mumma Realty Associates I
Principal
Balance for Cash Distribution
Robert M. Mumma 11 Owes-Net
after Offsets - Judgment
Interest to July 26, 1993
10
12,121.99
33,858.00
94,526.51
450,000.00
189.887.67
$833,332.46
$772,352.47
$347,505.03
G?QGUIT CGS ,
Book2115/Page1700 CFN#1913171 Page 10 of 13
0 0
Total Judgment Owed 639,887.67
Plus Interest owed from July 27, 1993 to
November 30, 200.5 ($639,887.67 x 12 % x 12
years 129 days at daily rate of $210.374 per day;
annual rate of $76,786.51) Interest continues
to accrue at the rate of $210.374 per day until
judgment is paid 948,155.88
Total Owed On Judgment Sum $1.588.043.53
(as of November 30, 2005)
Plus interest from November 30, 2005
to January 20, 2006 (51 days 0
$210.374 per day) $10,729.07
Total Owed On Judgment Sum
(as of January 20, 2006)
$1,598,772.62
Plus attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded
by separate final judgment in the future
Plus Interest Owed on Judgment Sum
after January 20, 2006 at $210.374
Less owed to Robert M. Mumma
II per 2000 Judgment (to be applied
only after payment in full of money
judgment, including all principal,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees)
Net Amount Owed to Plainti s on behalf
of High-Spec, Inc. by Defendant Robert
M. Mumma H (subject to adjustment for
interest accrued der 1/20106, and future
costs, expenses and fees before deduction
of debt of $415,229.28 owed to Robert
Mumma 17)
Total Assets Available for
Shareholders (balance cash for distribution
plus net owed on judgment, subject to
adjustment for future post-judgment
interest, costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
to be determined by separate judgment
415,229.28
$1,183,543.34
Book2115/Page1701 CFN#1913171 Page 11 of 13
0 0
before deduction of debt to Robert Mumma II) $ 1.531.048.39
Less Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Interest
on same payable to Plaintiffs as Executrixes
of Estate of Robert Mumma. deceased to be determined
Total Assets Available for Shareholders after
deduction for Plaintiffs fees and costs $1,531,048.39 (subj. to adjustment)
One-half payable to each 50% Shareholder (subj to adjustment) $ 765,524.195
Defendant Plaintiff
Robert M. Barbara McK.
Mumma 19 Mumma et al. 149
Payable to
High-Spec, Inc.
Owed by Robert
M. Mumma lI (subject
to adjustment)
Cash (subject to
adjustment)
Owed by Robert
Mumma, II to respective
parties
51.183.543.34 $591.771.67 $1.183.543.34
0 S (to be determined)*) (to be detemsined)*
*Fig= represents cash amount less attomev's fees
_1 =, 7791M, =7 X1.1: , /11._1.1:
The Receiver of High-Spec, Inc., shall immediately pay the following:
a. Pennsylvania Income Tax, penalties and interest in the
amount of $48,858.00. (Subject to change.)
to verification.)
b. All Trade Payables in the amount of $12,121.99. (Subject
c. $94,526.51 to THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA.
d. $330,320.91 to MUMMA REALTY ASSOCIATES I.
8. And accordingly, the Receiver of High-Spec, Inc., is authorized and directed,
12
G"
ACUI T c?
Book2115/Page1702 CFN#1913171 Page 12 of 13
after actual collection of all sums owed by Robert M. Mumma, H under the judgment, including all
principal, prejudgment and post judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, and payments to the
Receiver, to distribute the assets of the corporation as follows:
a. S (to be determined) to ROBERT M. MUMMA,1I.
(Subject to adjustment based on (a) and (b) above).
b. Vto be determined). plus attornevsYees & costs) to BARBARA
MCK. MUMMA and LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased. (subject to adjustment
based on (a) and (b) above).
30. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Amended Final
Judgment and to issue such further orders as may be appropriate in the winding down of High-Spec,
Inc., including the entry of a separate final judgment for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court also
retains jurisdiction to enter orders making such further adjustments and connections as are necessary
to paragraph 29 of this Amended Final Judgment and to complete and adjust those items in that
paragraph left to be determined or adjusted after this Court's makes a final decision on the amount
of attorneys' fees and costs. The Court also retains jurisdiction to make further orders on the
activities of the Receiver, payment of corporate debts, and distribution of the corporate assets as may
be necessary and proper.
DONE AND ORDERED at Stuart, Florida this day of A. , 2006.
Robert Makemson
Circuit Court Judge
copies to:
James L. S. Bowdish, Esquire
Robert Mumma II, individually and as sole surviving Director of Defendant High-Spec, Inc. by
regular U.S. Mail and by certified mail return receipt requested to him at 6880 SE Harbor Cir. Stuart,
FL 34996-1968 and P.O. Box 58 Bowmansdale, PA 17008
STATE OF FLORIDA
MARTIN COUNTY
IT C%
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE o`er 9a
FOREGOING _a PAGES IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL.
13 MARSHA EWING, CLERK
BY, -1 -, D.C.
DATE'
Book2115/Page1703 CFN#1913171 Page 13 of 13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 25, 2006, I served a copy of the foregoing motion upon
counsel of record by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
Crary, Buchanan, Bowdish, Bovie, Beres,
Elder & Thomas, Chartered
555 Colorado Avenue
PO Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
A 't-
G. Weber (PA 89266)
r,?
.
e '? ---?1
='S= -n
n????
_ _? ,_
?..... -- i {?
^?
',- {.....! -LAY.
C!J ??
F,TMESq)ATA ME1Mumw4 5844.1 (seam) 8747 (Kim)\5844. f Mumma Fffi Uh 8445. emwenepetifimweldke
C eWed'. 319104 7'.50A
58441
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC„ a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT
CUMBERLAND
No.: 06 - 2197
COMMON PLEAS OF
LINTY, PENNSYLVANIA
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys,
WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby answer Defendants Robert M.
follows:
Admitted.
2. Paragraph 2 is a conclusion of law to which no response
It is admitted that the document attached as Exhibit A to Def<
the Amended Final Judgment. It is also admitted that the Amended Final Jud
Robert M. Mumma, II and that the action was brought by Barbara McK I
Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, deceased,
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of Robert M. Mumma, deceased and
allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are denied.
It is specifically denied thatthe Amended Final Judgment
amount of liability. On the contrary, the Amended Final
Estate a money judgment against Robert M. Mumma, 11, but left the issue of
TERM
DEARDORFF
II and High-Spec, Inc. as
required.
ts' Petition is a copy of
nt was entered against
ma and Lisa Mumma
as Co-Trustees of the
i Spec, Inc. All other
not finally determine the
and awarded the
attorneys' fees and costs
for another day. Attorneys' fees and costs due to Plaintiffs in the Florida ac?ion is the only issue left
undecided by the Florida Amended Final Judgment. Moreover, Flo ida courts have held that the
maintaining ofjurisdictionontheissue ofattorneys fees andcosts doesnot ect the finality ofajudgment.
See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1992).
5. It is specifically deniedthatthe judgment amount is undecid . The Florida court explained
its analysis for arriving at its judgment total. Seel 24 of the Amended Final Judgment. The only issue left
undecided by the Florida Amended Final Judgment is the attorneys fees end costs due to Plaintiffs. All
additional allegations contained in Paragraph 5 are denied.
6. The Amended Final Judgment speaks for itself. All charac erizations ofit by Defendants
are specifically denied. Byway of further answer, the only issue left and ided by the Amended Final
Judgment is attorneys fees due to Plaintiffs.
7. Paragraph 7 is a conclusion of law to which no response is r quired. To the extentthat an
answer is required, the same is denied.
8. It is specifically denied that "many of the amounts... remain ubjectto adjustment or to be
determined." The only issue left undecided by the Florida Amended Fi 1 Judgment is the value of
attorneys' fees and costs due to Plaintiffs. All additional allegations contain din Paragraph 8 including
characterizations thereof are denied.
9. The Amended Final Judgment speaks for itself. All charade 'zations of it by Defendants
are specifically denied.
10. It is admitted thatthe Florida court has retained jurisdiction to temune attorneys fees and
costs due to Plaintiffs. It is specifically denied that there are other items left be determined or that the
Amended Final Judgment is not "final" for the purposes ofthe Uniform Enfo entofForeignJudgments
Act. See McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 1992) (maintaining jurisdic onto determine attorneys
fees and costs does not affect the finalityofjudgment). All additional allegatio s contained in Paragraph
10 including characterizations thereof are denied.
11. Paragraph I I is a conclusion of law to which no response is re uired. To the extent that
an answer is required, the same is denied.
12. It is admitted that there is an action pending in the Cumberlan County Court captioned
Robert M. Mumma, II v. the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, et al., No. 04-618 Civil Term (hereinafter
"High-Spec Action"). The rest of Paragraph 12 is a conclusion of law to whic no response is required.
To the extent that an answer is required, it is denied that the High-Spec A ion justifies the staying of the
instant execution.
13. It is admitted that the existence and enforceability of a doc ent titled "Share Restrictive
Agreement' is at issue. It is further admitted that Robert M. Mumma, II is a plaintiff in the High-Spec
Action. It is specifically denied that Robert M. Mumma, U and Robert . Mumma, Sr., deceased, ever
signed the alleged Share Restrictive Agreement. All other allegations con ' ed in Paragraph 13 are denied.
14. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029 (d), the fragment contained in aragraph 14 does not appear
to require an answer. To the extent the same is required, it is denied.
15. It is specifically denied that Robert M. Mumma, 11, is going gain anything from the High
-Spec Action if successful. As is evident in the Amended Final Judgme t, the Florida court entered
judgment against Robert M. Mumma, II. See ¶ 24 of the Amended Final udgment. That judgment is
binding on this court on principles of Full Faith and Credit. Additionally, H gh-Spec, Inc., was a Florida
corporation that was dissolved. Thus, there is no High-Spec, Inc. for R bert M. Mumma, II to be a
shareholder of. All other allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are de 'ed.
16. Paragraph 16 is a conclusion of law to which no response is equired. To the extent that
an answer is required, the same is denied. By way of further answer, if i is true that the interests of
executing the Florida Amended Final Judgment and litigating the High-Spec A ion are so similar, then the
High-Spec Action should be dismissed pursuant to principles ofres judicata d collateral estoppel, and
Defendants should be estopped from arguing for a stay of execution in a instant action.
17. Paragraph 17 is a conclusion of law to which no response is quired. To the extent that
an answer is required, the same is denied. By way of further answer, if it s true that the interests of
executing the Florida Amended Final Judgment and litigating the High-Spec A 'on are so similar, thenthe
High-Spec Action should be dismissed pursuant to principles ofresjudicata d collateral estoppel, and
Defendants should be estopped from arguing for a stay of execution in th instant action.
18. Paragraph 18 is a conclusion of law to which no response is re uired. To the extent that
an answer is required, the same is denied.
19. Paragraph 19 is a conclusion of law to which no response is re aired. To the extent that
an answer is required, the same is denied. Byway of further answer, Defendants ust be aware that High-
Spec, Inc. is a dissolved corporation and no longer exists. It
not exist.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable
Final Judgment is a final judgment for the purposes ofthe Uniform
and dismiss Defendants' Motion to Strike Foreign Judgment or in
Respectfully
MARTSON DEAR
-Vk??
to prejudice an entity that does
of Foreign Judgments Act
Alternative to Stay Execution.
WILLIAMS & OTTO
No V. Otto III, Esquire
Attorney ID No. 27763
Michael J. Collins, Esqu
Attorney ID No. 200427
MARTSON DEARDOR
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
James L.S. Bowdish, Esi
FL. Bar No.: 114308
CRARY,BUCHANAN,
BERES, ELDER & TH(
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
(772) 287-2600
WILLIAMS & OTTO
)ISH, BOVIE,
CHARTERED
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION
Michael J. Collins, Esquire, of the firm of MARTSON
attorneys for Plaintiffs in the within action, certifies that the stateme
Petition to Strike Foreign Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay Ev
best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsw
-X?u
Michael J. Collins, Es
WILLIAMS & OTTO,
made in the foregoing Answer to
are true and correct to the
statements herein are made
falsification to authorities.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff' Villiams & Otto, hereby certify
that a copy of the foregoing Answer to Petition to Strike Foreign Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay
Execution, was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office a? Carlisle, PA, first class mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Vincent V. Carissimi
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
3000 Two Logan Square
18'` and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
Justin G. Weber
Pepper Hamilton, LLP
200 One Keystone Plaza
North Front and Market Streets
Post Office Box 1181
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181
MARTSON
By.
t e ne A. Dec
10 ast High Stree
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
WILLIAMS & OTTO
Date: June 2, 2006
r"+
L
o
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executors
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
vs.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
TO: PROTHONOTARY
IN THE CO RT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2191 CIVIL TERM
Please attach this Verification of Defendant Robert M.
to Strike Foreign Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay Execution,
about May 26, 2006.
h
II to the Petition
with this Court on or
TS cent V. Carissim (PA 42227)
PEPPER HAMILT N LLP
3000 Two Logan Sq are
18th and Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19 03-2799
(215) 981-4351
Justin G. Weber (PA 89266)
PEPPER HAMILTO LLP
200 One Keystone PI a
North Front and Mar et Streets
Post Office Box 118
Harrisburg, PA 1710 -1181
(717) 255-1170
Dated: May 26, 2006
Attorneys for Defer
Robert M. Mumma
VERIFICATION
I, Robert M. Mumma, II, hereby verify that the
document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
I understand that the statements in the foregoing
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4909 relating to unsworn falsification to
Date: G &AA
T Robert M. Mumma, II
made in the foregoing
and belief.
are made subject to the
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on May 26, 2006, I served a copy of the
Praecipe upon
counsel of record by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
Crary, Buchanan, Bowdish, et al.
555 Colorado Avenue
PO Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
G
(PA 89266)
ca ?='
cam; <:;,
??,-,. ?? r?zr-
co ? c?
- '>?,
rH =?;
`;.?
}
?_
,;,
?
?
'.:=? cn
_. ? :-c
x?cEIVEV 3
MAY 8 1 200/6
_ Y
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executors
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
vs.
ROBERT M. MUMMA H and HIGH-SPEC,
INC., a Florida corporation,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
A,d day of ,22066, upon consideration of the
AND NOW, this
foregoing petition, it is hereby ordered that:
(1) a rule is issued on the Respondents to show cause why Petitioners are not
entitled to the relief requested;
date;
(2)
Respondents shall file an answer to the petition withilloo days of this
S ? 6"' 0-v.? 0? V'0??
I-- Fat <P
BY THE COURT: T ?
A?O"?
J.
Distribution:
incent V. Carissimi, Pepper Hamilton LLP, 3000 Two Logan Square, 18`h and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
ustin G. Weber, Pepper Hamilton LLP, PO Box 1181, Harrisburg, PA 17108-1181
o V. Otto, III, Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, 10 East High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
?es L.S. Bowdish, Crary, Buchanan, Bowdish, Bovi, Beres, Elder & Thomas, Charted,
PO Drawer 24, tuart, FL 34995-0024
Ck
t ? , Y, p,t??!'t
?, . •i..v
4 ". L` it
??, '?'rv?ti1? Z, "' ?'t31F ?LSil?
i
J?C?V?? !1`a?J , t ,?1 ??? ? ??
?1 ,E ? ?^?
??r?,
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Supreme Ct. No. 18046
2407Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA' 17110
(717) 657-7701
Attorney for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, and NO. 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
LISA M. MORGAN as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a
Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS' PETITION TO STRIKE
AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT
Defendants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc., (herein
Defendants), respectfully Petition this Court to Strike the Judgment entered
against the Defendants, and Defendants respectfully submit the following in
support of this Petition.
1. Robert M. Mumma died on April 12, 1986, a resident of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
1
2. On June 5, 1986, Letters of Administration of the Estate of Robert M.
Mumma, Deceased, were issued to Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa Morgan
Mumma (herein Executrixes) by the Register of Wills in the Orphans' Court
Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Pursuant to the terms of their appointment, Executrixes became
obligated to administer the Estate according to the law of Pennsylvania, and
more specifically the Pennsylvania Probate, Estate, and Fiduciaries Code, 20
Pa.C.S. §§ 101, et seq.
4. On April 19, 2006, the Plaintiffs-Executrixes filed with this Court a
judgment against Defendants (herein the judgment) pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (herein the Act), 42 Pa.C.S. §
4306.
5. The judgment filed in Pennsylvania had been initially entered on
February 17, 2006, by the Honorable Robert Makemson in the State of Florida by
the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County,
Florida.
6. The Plaintiffs-Executrixes claim that the judgment was properly entered
and is enforceable in this Court pursuant to the Act.
7. The Act provides that "A judgment so filed ... shall have the same effect
and be subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceedings for
reopening, vacating, or staying as a judgment of any court of common pleas of
this Commonwealth...." 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306(b).
2
8. The judicial interpretations of the Act say, "In order for our courts to
recognize a [foreign] judgment as valid and enforceable, the sister state must
have had proper jurisdiction over the defendant and afforded him or her due
process of law." Reco Equipment Co. v. John T. Subrick Contracting Inc., 780
A.2d 684, 686 (Pa. Super. 2001). Similarly, in Bancorp Group, Inc. v. Pir oq s, Inc.,
744 A.2d 791 (Pa. Super. 2000), the Court said, "The full faith and credit clause
does not require recognition for a judgment of a sister state tendered without
jurisdiction." 744 A.2d at 795.
9. The judgment entered in Florida is invalid and is not entitled to
recognition and enforcement in this Commonwealth because the Florida Court
did not have jurisdiction to enter that judgment, so the judgment should be
stricken or opened or both.
10. The Defendants assert their right to relief through two procedures, a
Petition to Strike the Judgment and a Petition to Open the Judgment, and those
procedures were distinguished by the Superior Court in Cargitlada v. Binks
Manufacturing Co., 837 A.2d 547 (Pa. Super. 2003). "A petition to strike a
judgment will not be granted unless a fatal defect appears on the face of the
record. Matters outside the record will not be considered, and if the record is self-
sustaining, the judgment will not be stricken. In considering a petition to open a
judgment, the court may consider matters dehors the record. Therefore, a
petition to open the judgment is the proper method of seeking relief from a
judgment where the irregularity of the judgment is predicated upon matters
outside the record." 837 A.2d at 550.
3
11. These Petitions are timely filed because they raise the issue of the
subject matter jurisdiction of the Court that entered the Florida judgments and the
question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time and can never
be waived. See DeCoatsworth v. Jones, 414 Pa.Super. 589, 603, 607 A.2d 1094,
1101 (1992) ("[I]t is never too late to attack a judgment or decree for want of
jurisdiction. That question is always open.... Moreover, [it] is well settled that a
judgment or decree rendered by a court which lacks jurisdiction of the subject
matter ... is null and void...."). The law of Florida is the same. See Morales v.
Salazar, 226 So.2d 833 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ("[T]he lack of subject matter
jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and such jurisdiction cannot be created by
waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties.")
12. The Defendants recognize that they previously filed a Motion to Strike
this Judgment on May 25, 2006, which was denied by the Court, but that Motion
did not address the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, which is Defendants'
claim in this Petition, and the cases cited in paragraph 11 establish the rule that
the lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
PETITION TO STRIKE
13. The averments in paragraphs 1 through 12 above are incorporated
herein by reference.
14. The record in this case shows that the Plaintiffs-Executrixes initiated
this action in Florida as a shareholders' derivative action against the Defendants.
15. The law of Florida is clear: "A person may not commence a
[shareholders' derivative action] ... unless the person was a shareholder of the
4
corporation when the transaction complained of occurred...." See section
607.07401 of the Florida Statutes (2002).
16. The Florida Courts have interpreted that statute as requiring
ownership of shares in the corporation when the suit is initiated as well as
"continuous ownership throughout the pendency of the suit." Timko v. Triarsi, 898
So.2d 89, 91 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2005).
17. The law of Pennsylvania mandates that the Orphans' Court Division of
the Court of Common Pleas has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the ownership
rights of a Decedent in any personal property. See 20 Pa.C.S. 711, Provident
Trademens Bank & Trust Co. v. Kabian, 414 Pa. 554, 201 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1966),
and Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 197 A.2d 721 (Pa.
1964).
18. The result of the mandates of section 711 of the Code is that this
Court and only this Court has the authority to determine the lawful ownership of
stock held by the Decedent at the time of his death.
19. This Court has not exercised its exclusive subject matter jurisdiction as
authorized by section 711, so there has been no judicial determination by a Court
with the proper authority about the ownership of the stock at the time the
Plaintiffs initiated the Florida action.
20. Because the ownership rights in the stock had not been determined
when the Plaintiffs initiated the Florida action, they could not satisfy the statutory
mandate that they must have been "a shareholder of the corporation when the
5
transaction complained of occurred...." See section 607.07401 of the Florida
Statutes (2002).
21. Because the Executrixes could not have shown that they had standing
to bring the suit, the Florida Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case.
22. Because the Florida Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case,
this Court is precluded from enforcing the judgment entered by the Florida Court.
WHEREFORE Defendants Robert M. Mumma and High-Spec, Inc.,
respectfully petition this Court to enter an Order striking the judgment that was
entered herein.
PETITION TO OPEN
23. The averments in paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein by
reference.
24. The law of Pennsylvania mandates that a personal representative of a
decedent's estate is responsible for the performance of all contractual obligations
incurred by the decedent during his lifetime. See In Re Estate of Stormer, 385
Pa. 382, 123 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1956).
25. More specifically, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said that a
Decedent's contract to sell his shares of stock upon his death as part of a "buy-
sell" agreement creates "a contract right which is superior to individuals claiming
the shares under decedent's will or by intestacy." In Re Estate of Brown, 446 Pa.
401, 411, 289 A.2d 77, 82 (Pa. 1972).
6
26. In 1985, the Decedent and Defendant Robert M. Mumma 11 caused the
formation of the corporation High-Spec, Inc., as a Florida corporation, and they
were the only shareholders of that corporation.
27. When the Decedent and Defendant Robert M. Mumma 11 incorporated
High-Spec, they agreed to the terms of and executed a Share Restrictive
Agreement in the form that is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
28. The Agreement executed by the Decedent and Defendant Robert M.
Mumma II was signed in Pennsylvania and it was placed in a safe deposit box at
Dauphin Deposit Bank at 213 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
30. The Agreement executed by the Decedent and Defendant Robert M.
Mumma II was subsequently lost or stolen from the safe deposit box and
Defendant Robert M. Mumma has made a diligent search for that Agreement,
without success.
31. By its terms, the Agreement obligates the personal representative of a
deceased shareholder to offer to sell the shares of the deceased shareholder to
the corporation and to any surviving shareholders.
32. When Defendant Robert M. Mumma attempted to enforce the
Agreement, he was advised by William D. Boswell, legal counsel for High-Spec,
that it was not necessary to initiate any litigation because the Estate would be
unable to transfer the shares in dispute.
33. William D. Boswell, legal counsel for High-Spec, did request that
Barbara McK. Mumma comply with the Agreement and sell the stock to the
7
corporation but Ms. Mumma refused to do so and she demanded payment of
more money that was specified in the Agreement.
34. Defendant Robert M. Mumma II was also informed by his attorney at
the time, John B. Fowler III, Esquire, that it was not necessary to initiate any
litigation about the shares of stock at any time before the Executrixes filed a Final
Accounting.
35. Defendant Robert M. Mumma objected to the Estate's failure to
transfer the shares to him when he filed Objections to the Fourth and Final
Accounting filed by the Estate on January 6, 2004.
36. Because the Executrixes of the Estate failed to offer to sell the shares
of the deceased shareholder to the corporation and to any surviving
shareholders, the Estate never acquired any ownership interest in the shares. In
Re Estate of Brown, 446 Pa. 401, 411, 289 A.2d 77, 82 (Pa. 1972).
37. Because the Executrixes of the Estate never acquired any ownership
interest in the shares, the Estate did not have standing to initiate the
shareholders' derivative action that culminated in the entry of the judgment that
has been transferred to this Court. Timko v. Triarsi, 898 So.2d 89 (Fla.App. 5
Dist. 2005).
38. Because the Executrixes of the Estate could not have shown that they
had standing to bring the suit, the Florida Court did not have jurisdiction to decide
the case. See Alterra Healthcare Corporation v. Estate of Shelley, 827 So.2d 936
(Fla. 2002).
8
39. The United States Supreme Court has said that standing is a
"fundamental restriction on [a court's] authority...." Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400,
410 (1991).
40. Because the Florida Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case,
this Court is precluded by the law of Pennsylvania from enforcing the judgment
entered by the Florida Court. Bancorp Group, Inc. v. Pir„ os, Inc., 744 A.2d 791
(Pa. Super. 2000).
WHEREFORE Defendants Robert M. Mumma and High-Spec, Inc.,
respectfully petition this Court to enter an Order opening the judgment that was
entered herein to afford them the opportunity to prove the averments of this
Petition and, after such proof, to enter an Order striking the judgment.
Dated:
ectfully su itted,
0 or
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court ID # 18046
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
9
VERIFICATION
Pursuant to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, 1 hereby verify that the
averments in this Petition are true and correct.
Dated:
Robert M. Mumma II
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served the foregoing Petition by placing a true and
correct copy thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
555 Colorado Avenue
PO Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
Kenneth A. Norman, Esquire
McCarthy Summers
2400 S.E. Federal Highway, Fourth Floor
Stuart, FL 34994
Dated:
X
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
Pa. Supreme Court ID # 18046
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
11
.ft.
AO"**`
SHARE RESTRICTIVE AGREEMENT
HIGH-SPEC, INC.
ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day
of : 1505, by and between each of the followinq+,' aH-
sP G, NC., a corporation of the State of Florida, with an office
and place of business in the City of Harrisburg, County of
Dauphin, Pennsylvania, hereinafter referred to as the
"corporation", and ROBERT M. MUMMA and ROBERT N. MUM X, ZI,
individually being all of the shareholders of high-Spec, Inc.,
hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Shareholders".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, in order to better assure continuation of competent
management of the Corporation, the parties hereto desire by this
agreement to aoeomplish this purpose by restrieting'the disposi-
tion of the Corporation's shares of stock.
Now, THEREFORE „ with the intent to be legally bound hereby,
the parties hereto being the Corporation and the Shareholders
agree as follows t
1. ALL SHARES AFFECTED. That each and every share of this
Corporation heretofore issued or which may be hereafter issued is
and shall be held, owned and transferred subject to all the
terms, conditions, covenants, rights and privileges herein con-
tained.
2. TO WHOM SHARES MAY BE TpmsrTRRED. All shares
heretofore issued or which may be hereafter issued may be
transferred by or through a Shareholder only under the provisions
and subject to the conditions of this Agreement.
3. ORDER IN WHICH SXJ= MUST BE OFFEMM FOR TRANSFER$
a. Corporation. In the event that a Shareholder shall
desire to transfer all or any of his shares in the Corporation,
such Shareholder shall first offer said shares for sale in writ-
ing by registered or certified mail to the Corporation at a price
determined as hereinafter provided. The Corporation shall have
the privilege within thirty (30) days from the date of the mail-
ing of said offer to it by said Shareholder to purchase all or
any portion of the shares so offered. Acceptance by the Corpora-
tion shall be signified in writing sent by registered or certi-
fied mail to the offeror, which acceptance shall be accompanied
by the down payment as is hereinafter provided in this Agreement.
Y. Shareholders. If the corporation fails within the
thirty (30) day period to signify its desire to purchase all or
any of the shares so offered, the shares not purchased by the
corporation shall then be offered by said Shareholder in writing
Exhibit "A"
900100 d 00 '0 { (in i ? onr%,_
sent by registered oz certified mail to the other Shareholder or
Shareholders then of record, individually and severally and not
jointly and prorated in accordance with their then existing share
holdings if there be more than one Shareholder receivinq the said
offer. The price of the shares so offered shall be determined as
provided bereinaf ter in this Agreement. Upon receipt of said
registered or certified notice, the Shareholder shall within
thirty (30) days thereafter purchase from the Shareholder so
offering his shares the proportionate number of sha=ee to which
he is entitled and shall make payment thereof to the shareholder
an provided in section 5(b) of this .Agreement. The parties
hereto agree that the requirements of this paragraph are
mandatory upon the shareholder and an offer to the shareholder
under this paragraph shall be as to each of said Shareholders a
legal and binding obligation.
e. Right to Sell When Others Fail to Purchase . As the
za19 to tbn at-her r o share hol o then
s a 1 exist in each Share a er no r q t to sell to an of
a ens n co -
611 M is a
dance wj=
terms o th s Agreement.
d. Fractional shares. If prorating results in
fractional shares, the shares shall not be offered as fractional
shares but shall be offered as whole shares more equitably to the
Shareholders in accordance with the number of shares held by
them.
e. Time in which to Make Consecutive Offers. Whenever
a further offer to sell must be made in accordance with the pro-
visions of this Article, such offer must be made within twenty
(20) days after the expiration of the time of acceptance of the
preceding offer to sell. Upon a breach of this condition, the
offeror shall be deemed conclusively to have abandoned his desire
to sell such shakes and if be continues in his desire to Be"
sue s a e
a Kris to s cc
zi0F1-vMr-WM
`tirsl_ov
oset fort.
holders in
manner tip
4. TRANSFER OF SHARES UPON DEATH OF SHAREHOLDER. in the
event of the death of any Shareholder, it is agreed that all of
the shares of the Corporation held by such decedent at the time
of his death shall be sold in the same manner as provided in Sec-
tion 3 of this Agreement in that the personal representative of
the decedent shall first offer, within sixty (68) days after his
qualification as such personal representative, the shares owned
by the decedent to the Corporation and if the Corporation does
not purchase such shares as provided in section 3 of this Agree-
meat, then the personal representative shall thereupon offer such
shares pro rata to the other Shareholder or Shareholders of this
Corporation who hereby agree individually to purchase such shares
in the manner as provided in paragraph 3 hereof.
-2-
d RR•aI 13MI .-
-JON
Zn the event the offer is not made within said sixty
(60) day period as herein provided, it shall be deemed ipso facto
to be made at the and of said sixty (60) day period and if,
within thirty (30) days thereafter, the Corporation does not
request delivery q€ the shares to +t for purchase, the Share-
holders shall enforce el very o such s area t e !cease
5. METHOD OF DETERMINING PRICE AND PAYMNT.
a. Purchase Price. The price of the shares offered for
sale in compliance with Article 3 and Article 4 of this Agreement
shall be at the actual book value, as of the end of the month
immediately preceding the.making of the first offer by the Share-
holder under Article 3 of this Agreement or the date of the de-
cease of the Shareholder as such book value shall be determined
by the then certified public accountants of the Corporation. No
allowance will be made or given for good will or any other intan-
g1ble values. The book valuation as determined shall be final
and conclusive and not subJeet to appeal.
b. Method of Payment. The payment for the stock pur-
chased under either Article 3 or Article 4 of this Agreement.
shall be twenty-five (251) percent with the acceptance of the
offer and the purchaser shall secure seventy-five (751) percent
of the sales price by a negotiable collateral note payable in
three (3) equal annual installments, with the right of the
purchaser to anticipate any and all payments both as to time and
amount without penalty or premium. Said note shall bear interest
at the rate of tan (10+k) percent per annum and shall be secured
by all of the stock purchased. As payments are made, a
proportionate amount of the shares shall be released to the pur-
chaser. Said note shall provide that upon the failure to pay any
installment of the principal or interest at"maturity, after sixty
(60) days written notice thereof sent by registered or certified
mail to the purchaser, and said default shall not be cured within
said sixty (60) day period, the holder of said note shall have
the right to declare the whole of the unpaid principal and inter-
est immediately due and payable and proceed against the said
stock held as collateral by selling it to the Corporation and the
other Shareholders in the same order and by the same method and
intervals of time as hereinabove provided and at a price deter-
mined by the same method as herelnbefore provided in this
Article. The purchaser in default shall be liable for any amount
of the unpaid balance of the principal and interest not realized
by the subsequent sales, but should there be an excess, the same
shall be paid to the purchaser.
C. Rights of a Purchaser. During the time the seller
retains the stock as security and immediately upon the payment of
the first twenty-five (25%) percent, the purchaser shall be enti-
tled to vote all of the stock purchased, receive all dividends
-3-
9C0/En^ d
00'91 (3nf)rnn;-ii-uur
tON
payabje the: tor., and in every respect to enjoy the rights of a
seller, except as to the lien rights of the unpaid seller as pro-
vided in this Article.
6.) PERSONS BOUND By THIS AGREEMENT,
a. Binding Effect of Agreement. The parties hereto in-
tend to legally bound by the terms of this Agreement, and all
of the terms, conditions, covenants, rights and privileges herein
contained shall bind each of the parties hereto, their heirs,
executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and also any
assignees for the benefit of creditors, receivers or trustees in
bankruptcy or insolvency.
b. Transferees Hound by Agreement. All shares of the
Corporat in the hands of any parsons wbonwoever shall at all
times be subject to all of the provisions of this Agreement, and
in the event of any transfer of shares each and all of the terms,
conditions, covenants, rights and privileges herein contained
shall imediately attach to and bind said shares in the hands of
the transferee.
c. In the event this corporation shall sell or transfer
any unissued shares to any person not an individual party to this
Agreement, either individual or corporate, it shall be donw- only
after or simultaneously therewith, the person who shall receive
said shares shall endorse his or their acceptance upon this
Agreement and thereupon shall become a party to this Agreement as
to those shares which were issued to him as though he were an
original subscriber hereto.
d. In the event any shareholder hereto should desire to
transfer, gift, sale or otherwise, any of the shares of the
Corporation so held by him to any immediate member of his family
by inter vivos transaction and a separate instrument in writing
the consent thereto by all of the other Shareholders of this Cor-
poration shall be obtained, and upon reee{pt of such written
consent, the consent shall be attached hereto and made a part
hereof, and said transfer shall then be permitted hereunder upon
the compliance by said recipient or purchaser of the provisions
of Paragraph 6(c) of this Agreement so that said family member
shareholder shall become a party hereto.
7. RESOLUTION TO ENDORSE THIS AGREEMENT. A suitable reso-
lution shall be adopted and kept in force by the Corporation to
make this Agreement effective.
d. REQUIREMENTS PRECEDINO TRANSFER OF SHARES.
:.? Record of Transfers. Transfers of shares shall be
ii
made on?, Pon *-ha books of the Corporation and before a new cer-
tificate is issued the old certificate must be surrendered for j
cancellation.
-4-
W
she' i be l
b. Rights Against Transferees. No shares }
transferred upon the books of the Corporation, nor shall any Bale /
or transfer at other disposition thereof be effective unless and
until all the terms and conditions of this Agreement are first
complied with, and in case of violation of this Agreement by the
attempted transfer of shares without compliance with the terms
hereof, the person or persons shall have the right to compel the
holder or transferee to transfer and deliver such shares in
accordance with the rights and privileges and at the price here-
inabove provided.
9. SHARE CERTIFICATES TO REFER To THIS AGREEMENT. All cer-
tificates presently issued or hereafter issued shall have
inscribed thereon the following reference to the terms of this
Agreement; the inscription to be placed upon the face of all said
certificates shall read as follows:
"This stock is transferrable only in accordance
with the terms of the Agreement between the
corporation and Shareholders, dated ,
1005, crow on file with the Corporation, as
upon proof of compliance therewith."
The parties hereto hereby authorize the secretary of Corporation
to endorse said certificates as above provided.
10. NOTICES. All notices hereby provided for shall be given
by registered or certified mail addressed to the party entitled
thereto at his last address appearing on the books of Drivers,
Inc. at the time any such notice shall be given.
11. DEFINITIONS.
a. The word "transfer" as used it this A reement shall
include, but not be limited to, the following meanings: /!sell,
assign, hypothecate, pledge, encumber or otherwise dispose of,
either dozing the lifetime of the Shareholder, or after his
death4
b. Words used in the singular shall include the plural,
and the plural the singular. words used in the maceuline gender
shall include the feminine and neuter.
12. CORPORATE AUTHOR
Corporation pursuant to a
the corporation passed at
Directors on
duly adopted at a meeting
held on the same date and
Directorf.
LTY. This Agreement is executed by the
resolution by the Board of Directors of
a duly held meeting of such Board of
, 1985. The same resolution was
of the Shareholders of the Corporation
following the meeting of the Board of
13. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be altered, amended or
terminated by a writing signed by the Corporation and all of the
?,?,
g00?50n nn - uj
Shareholders and this Agreement shall
all of the Shareholders simultaneously
thirty (30; days.
'04%
terminate upon the death of
or withir. & ,period coo
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Shareholders have hereunto set their
hands and seals and the Corporation has caused theses presents to
be executed by its President, under the Board of Directors,
attested to by its Secretary and its common and corporate seal
hereunto affixed, the day and year first above written.
ATTEST: HIGH-SPEC, INC.
_
By: soft"
Secretary President
Corporation
Ro e= M. Mumma (SEAL)
Shareholder
Robert M. Mununa, 17 (SEAL)
Shareholder
-6-
900/900 d 10'81 (3?1)onn?-i?-uur
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, and
LISA M. MORGAN as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a
Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA I( and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
NO. 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
ORDER
NOW, this 34001 day of VA ", 2006, upon
consideration of the foregoing petition, it is hereby ordered that
(1) A rule is issued upon the respondent to show cause why the
petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested;
(2) The respondent shall file an answer to the petition within
J - c --
1-1
-dem 4)
twenty days of service upon the respondent;
( .R 1P. No-.'206.7;
(4} vsit ?gha -ompieted within days of this
3
t
i
e
r?rl' (.. P1 A
,
(Notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties
by the petitioner.
BY T URT:
,:
??,s...:
?,4,? ?? h
„,
?.
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
NOW comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF
FAFILES\DATAFILE\Mumma 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844.I.Mumma Estate\5844.5.motion.protectiveorder/nlm
Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM
Revised: 11/14/06 2:38PM
5844.5
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 49813
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida No.: 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
WILLIAMS & OTTO, and hereby aver as follows:
1 This case involves a Florida action where a 1993 judgment in the State of Florida has been
domesticated in Pennsylvania.
2 On November 13, 2006, counsel received Deposition Notices for Lisa M. Morgan and
Barbara McK. Mumma purportedly scheduling their depositions in Florida for November 30, 2006, and
December 1, 2006. (A copy of the Deposition Notices are attached as Exhibits "A" and "B.")
3 Depositions were unilaterally scheduled and are filed solely for the purpose to embarrass
and annoy the deponents.
4. Defendant has also served Plaintiffs' counsel with Interrogatories and a Request for
Production of Documents. (Those discovery requests are hereby attached as Exhibits "C" and "D.")
5. Defendant has filed a Petition to Open and/or Strike this Judgment.
6. Plaintiffs' Reply to that Petition is not due until November 28, 2006.
7. Discovery is not proper in this case where a j udgment has been entered and a Petition to
Open and/or Strike is pending.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a Protective Order quashing the Deposition
Notices.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By - , 2 ? QJ)r,
G We B. Faller, ., Esquire
I.D. Number 49813
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: November 14, 2006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RECYCLED PAPER
i I-CIABIE
FXhibi+ Q
BARBARA, McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
n; +L, C,.+n+n of DnD=DT KA nAI 1MKAA
%./1 L11 L-O?Q LGi VI 1 \?.0LJL-1 % t IV1. IVI%JIVlr-%
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust Under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma, :
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a Fla.
Corporation,
IN THE C OURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs : No. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA 11 and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
TO: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
LISA M. MORGAN, and
BARBARA McK. MUMMA,
C/O George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc. will
take the deposition of Lisa M. Morgan at 9:00 a.m. or, November 30, 2006, and
December 1, 2006, at the offices of Scott Konopka, Esquire, 1000 S. Monterey
Commons Blvd., Suite 306, Stuart, FL 34996.
Dated: pectfull ubmitted,
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
PA. Supreme Court ID # 18046
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
Exhibit "A"
('r-RTIr:I('*ATP r)p CI=R\/I('r:
V-1 \ 111 1..11 %1 ` VI V`1 %W 1. V.
1, Cindy Sowers, an authorized representative of the Law Offices of Eric J.
Wiener, hereby certify that I served the foregoing by placing true and correct copies
thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
Scott Konopka, Esquire
1000 S. Monterey Commons Blvd.
Suite 306
Stuart, FL 34996
Dated:
Cindy So`vers
Legal Assistant to
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
RECYCLED PAPER
RF(YCf ABLE
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
Of +ho of Dt1RCDT NA. AAI IKAMA,
L Imo. %%A 1A, v1 1 ?vu"I ? try nvu
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees ofrthe'
Residuary Trust Under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a Fla.
Corporation, ;
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION
TO: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
LISA M. MORGAN, and
BARBARA McK. MUMMA,
CIO George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc. will
take the deposition of Barbara McK. Mumma at 9:00 a.m. on November 30, 2006, and
December 1, 2006, at the offices of Scott Konopka, Esquire, 1000 S. Monterey
Commons Blvd., Suite 306, Stuart, FL 34996.
Dated: Res u y su itted,
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
PA. Supreme Court ID # 18046
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
Exhibit "B"
rF=PTIFIrAT;= OF SERVICE
1, Cindy Sowers, an authorized representative of the Law Offices of Eric J.
UNiener, hereby certify that I served the foregoing by placing true and correct copies
thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
Scott Konopka, Esquire
1000 S. Monterey Commons Blvd.
Suite 306
Stuart, FL 34996
Dated:
f ?1 ;?1U
Cindy S ers
Legal Assistant to
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
.S RECYCLED PAPER
04 RECYCLABLE
Exhibi+ (?
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as r,-',o-Executrixes
n; ti is `$tatc V1 ?vQv`?T IVI viU,volv?ir--N,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust Under the Last Wil! and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a Fla.
Corporation,
Plaintiffs ;
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA 11 and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
TO: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
LISA M. MORGAN, and
BARBARA McK. MUMMA,
C/O George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 4009.1 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Defendants produce copies of the following documents to
the undersigned within 30 days of service.
Definitions. Plaintiff intends that the following words and phrases shall have the
following meaning when used in this Request.
"You" and "your" shall mean both Executrixes and Trustees, individually and
jointly, and their attorneys, agents, and representatives.
"Documents" shall mean writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs,
electronically created data, and other compilations of data from which information can
Exhibit "C"
be obtained, translated, if necessary. by the respondent party or person upon whom the
rgmni nmc-+ nr t 1i #6r%r%cr%,% ie+ a r%m,n +krn, # ^,h .d.,+.?..+?.... ... ....+......r., ?.wi?.,rn ',r,+r. .-..+.....-..-.hi.,
1-466% 7L v1 JULJrJ%J I1CJ 1J JGI V?d 11I1VUy11 uGtGI,rUVII VI IGIiVVG1Y UGVIV V0 11ILV rGQOVIIQ/JIY
usable form.
Documents to be produced:
1. All documents received by you containing advice about ownership of the
shares in High-Spec, Inc., that were owned by Robert M. Mumma at the time of his
death.
2. All documents received by you from anyone, including but not limited to
William D. Boswell, that addressed the issues of ownership of the shares in High-Spec,
Inc., that were owned by Robert M. Mumma at the time of his death.
3. All documents contained in any files maintained by Robert M. Mumma
prior to his death that relate to High-Spec, Inc.
4. All documents that support any of your contentions in your answers to
Interrogatories.
5. All documents that you intend to introduce as evidence at the trial of this
case.
Dated:
pectfull emitted,
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
PA. Supreme Court ID # 18046
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERA/ICE
! hereby certify that I car;iai the fnrarn- nine by niI-. I nt-inn tr?wa nn- rrnrrant nnrniac
thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
Scott Konopka, Esquire
1000 S. Monterey Commons Blvd.
Suite 306
Stuart, FL 34996
Dated:
Cindy Sgiovers
Legal Atsistant to
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
3
0* RLCYCLED P4PER
fa,o RECYCLABLE
Exhibi+ D
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
rnf thA Estate of RORFRT NA AAI,JAAMA
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust Under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc.; a Fla.
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
TO: ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
LISA M. MORGAN, and
BARBARA McK. MUMMA,
CIO George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
No. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
The following Interrogatories are served on you pursuant to Rules 4005 and 4006
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. As used herein, "You" and "your" shall
mean both Executrixes and Trustees, individually and jointly, and their attorneys,
agents, and representatives.
1. Is it your contention that Robert M. Mumma and Robert M. Mumma II
never executed a Share Restrictive Agreement with respect to the shares of stock of
High-Spec, Inc.?
Exhibit "D"
State all facts that support your contentions in your answer to
interrogatory # 1 .
Whnt person or cntit% An ,n4 cnntenMl nnui o.vns the chnnne ?n uirlh_cnec
Inc., that were owned by Robert M. Mumma at the time of his death?
State all facts that support your contentions in your answer to
IntarmnotrNmi ft
Have you, as Executrices of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma, ever sought
any l! legal advice about what person of ein ??iiy now vvvil? the tity now owns shares ii i High-Spec, ? i i?..'Inc
.,
that were owned by Robert M. Mumma at the time of his death?
5
6. if your answer tc interrogatory- # ;s aff;rmat;ve. state the ^ames and
a??rev.C,ec. of aii rersviic_a vv i1 iv 11"v?°, VI%JVIdcd yvu VVII.II DUV11 icyai auvIVC.
6
Did William D. Boswell ever discuss with either of the Executrixes the
issue of whether he prepared a Share Restrictive Agreement with respect ? to the to the shares.
.,, v? ?w? v i .v... t? u r v ? ?ev? i ?v? ?? rr?u ? ? a..arof stock of High-Spec. Inc.?
7
B. If your answer to Interrogatory # ; is affirmative; state when he had that
.-red, and state UI and tale the substance t
vviu with ? yo-,.,,, ote vV11GIG ???her?. UIQ that I discussion occurred, +UI
discussion Jm?U ?G
that discussion.
G. Diq the 'state of Robert M. Mumma ever attemp± to transfer the shares in
. II 1 v?ev, iiiv., tIIut WV`I.rv v'VVI I by I %%JLtCrL VI IVIUI II ICI aL U le Ume of I llj UCatl I LV Q1 iy
other person or entity?
9
0. ft your answer to Interrogatory # g is affirmative, state to whom or what
Ir
entity such transfer '-.vaV attempted, was, attempten, and
v?lVll• V?AVII ?1 V111V1 VI ?Mvu11V1hen 1 such transfer •I{AV LA?lVlll'.J?V?Ayour
MI
contention about whether such transfer was completed.
10
State the facts that support your contention that the claims asserted in this
case by Robert M Mumma V are barred or foreclosed or precl? ded by any statutes of
1 V/1 V barred or IM4IVV • any VI
limitations.
1 2. Mate the facts that suppoI L your contention that the ciaims asserted in this
cube vy Qov?rt IvI iv/I%rml I IU 1' C'A r? ?41 I Vv V! I WO VcIVJV?.I W1 P41 VVI%A L.'Y tl lV %JVVtr; i iV v?
aches.
12
3. State the facts that support your contention that the claims asserted i^ this
vu ve v? C"7?.v~i0rt IV@. ir/ibi1 iii iiu i i Qi V Ihiui rVU r% %J1 I U1 v_%,I%J vv_oU Vr pl G^iIU?A.IG4 vY %I is uv?trii IUO v?
res judicata or collateral estoppel.
13
4. State the facts that support, ,your contention that any testimony by Robert
M. Mumma If is precluded or barred by the Dead Man's Act.
14
15, State the names, addresses, and telephone numr.hers of all witnesses you
intend tA t tV V VVIt11VJJVJ VI present tAl l V Y1t.1V11vV o call l as GAJ witnesses or any evidence at t t the a
II It the hearing scheduled 11 in this
in this
matter.
15
16. With respect to those persons identified in your answer tc interrogatory #
14state the substance of the testimony or evidence that person will present.
16
4 1 •
7. Identify; by name and address, each person whoa you expect to cal, as
an expert r iftness at the trial or hearing in this -,.a,-.e and state the subject matte., on
which the expert is expected to testify.
17
•
? 8 With respect to each expert identified in interrogatory # 1 state the
substance of the farts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a
summary of the grounds for each opinion.
Dated:
112
itted,
ERIC J. WIENER, ESQUIRE
PA. Supreme Court ID # 18046
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
18
4 . j •
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
horch?i ?artifii that f canierl the fnrcnninn by nlarinn tri is and rrnrrarrt rnniAc
.?.....7 v. 7 ... ... ,,. . y.....y 7 r....,. -tv ,...._
thereof in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
James L.S. Bowdish, Esquire
555 Colorado Avenue
P.O. Drawer 24
Stuart, FL 34995-0024
Scott Konopka, Esquire
1000 S. Monterey Commons Blvd.
Suite 306
Stuart, FL 34996
Dated:
I v?
ti
Cindy So rs
Legal Ass stant to
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
19
, V •
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify
that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order was served this date by depositing
same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Defendants
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
BYC l/1?.Ce
fcque A. Decker
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: November 20, 2006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
f
z ;
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation
NOV 2 1 2006
T
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.: 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
ORDER
,.?
AND NOW, this PA day of , 2006, upon consideration of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order, it is ordered that Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
BY T COURT,
'JJ
FAFILMDATAFILEWumma 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)M44.I.Mutrum F.state?5844.5.answertotttotiontostrike/nltn
Created: 9120/04 0:06PM
Revised: 11/28/06 4:I1PM
5844.5
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 49813
Michael J. Collins, Esquire
I.D. No. 200427
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida No.: 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA 11 and HIGH-SPEC,:
INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS'
PETITION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT
AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, MARTSON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS & OTTO, and in response to Defendants' Motion to Open/Strike Judgment, hereby aver as
follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Paragraph 3 calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. However, it is
admitted that the Executrixes appointment engendered certain fiduciary duties under the laws of
Pennsylvania.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
7. Paragraph 7 is a statement of law to which no response is required. By way of further
answer, the Pennsylvania Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act speaks for itself.
8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are statements of law to which no response is
required. By way of further answer, the case-law speaks for itself.
9. Paragraph 9 is a statement of law to which no response is required. By way of further
answer, it is asserted that the Amended Final Judgment domesticated in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
is a valid Florida final judgment. The Circuit Courtin Florida had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the
Florida action pursuant to §26.012 ofthe Florida Statutes. It is further pointed out that ancillary probate
was initiated in Florida to administer decedent's property in Florida. A true and accurate copy of the
Order Admitting Will ofNonresident to Probate and Appointing Personal Representatives is attached
hereto as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by reference.
10. Paragraph 10 contains statements of law to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, it is noted that the Petition to Open is untimely and should be dismissed for that reason
alone.
11. Paragraph 11 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, the case-law with respect to Striking and Opening Judgments speaks for itself. It is
specifically denied that the Florida Circuit Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Florida
dispute. Refer to §26.012 of the Florida Statutes.
12. It is admitted that Defendants already litigated one Petition to Open/Strike the Florida
Judgment, that they failed in convincing the Court to Open/Strike the Judgment, and that the first Petition
did not address subject matter jurisdiction. The balance ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are
conclusions of law and thus do not need to be responded to.
13. Paragraph 13 does not necessitate a response.
14. Admitted.
15. Paragraph 15 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Byway of
further answer, the Florida Statutes speak for themselves.
16. Paragraph 16 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Byway of
further answer, the case-law with respect to §607.07401 of the Florida Statutes speaks for itself.
17. Paragraph 17 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Byway of
further answer, 20 Pa.C.S.A. 711 speaks for itself as do the cases interpreting that statute.
18. The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 call for a legal conclusion and are thus
specifically denied.
19. The allegations contained in Paragraph 19 call for legal conclusions and are thus specifically
denied. By way of further answer, the Circuit Court in Florida had subj ect matter jurisdiction to hear the
Florida action pursuant to §26.012 of the Florida Statutes. It is further pointed out that ancillary probate
was initiated in Florida to administer decedent's property in Florida. See Exhibit A.
20. Paragraph 20 calls for a legal conclusion and is thus specifically denied.
21. Paragraph 21 calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are confusing the concepts of subject matter jurisdiction
and standing. It is noted, however, that Defendants had standing to bring the Florida action and the Florida
Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear it.
22. Paragraph 22 calls for a legal conclusion to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are confusing the concepts of subject matter jurisdiction
and standing. It is noted, however, that Defendants had standing to bring the Florida action and the Florida
Circuit Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear it.
23. Paragraph 23 does not necessitate a response.
24. Paragraph 24 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required.
25. Paragraph 25 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of
further answer In re Estate ofBrown speaks for itself and any conclusions based thereupon are specifically
denied.
26. It is admitted that Decedent and Defendant Robert M. Mumma, U (hereinafter "RMMII'),
formed High-Spec, Inc., as a Florida corporation in 1985. It is further admitted that at the time they were
the only shareholders of the corporation.
27. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent and RNMM entered into any shareholders
agreement, including but not limited to the alleged Share Restrictive Agreement. It is further pointed out
that the agreement Defendants attached to the instant Petition is an unsigned, undated and unauthenticated
document and is completely unenforceable.
28. Denied. It is specifically denied that Decedent and RMNIII entered into a Share Restrictive
Agreement or that such an agreement was ever held in a safe deposit box in Dauphin Deposit Bank.
29. Denied. It is specifically denied that the alleged Share Restrictive Agreement existed. It
is also denied that such an agreement (or any agreement for that matter) was lost or stolen from the safe-
deposit box at Dauphin Deposit Bank.
31. The allegations contained in Paragraph 31 are conclusions of law to which no response is
required. Byway of further answer, the alleged Share Restrictive Agreement can speak for itself. Any
conclusions based on the language contained within the Share Restrictive Agreement are specifically denied.
32. It is denied that the alleged Share Restrictive Agreement existed or that it was enforceable.
It is further denied that RMMII ever tried to enforce alleged rights pursuant to that agreement before the
Cumberland County Court case docketed at 04-6183. It is further denied that Attorney William D.
Boswell, Esquire, now deceased, ever advised RMMII with respect to an alleged Share Restrictive
Agreement, or that RMMII specifically did not enforce his alleged rights pursuant to the alleged Share
Restrictive Agreement in reliance on Mr. Boswell's alleged advice.
33. The allegations contained in Paragraph 33 are specifically denied and are hearsay.
34. It is specifically denied that Attorney John B. Fowler, III, Esquire advised RMMII at any
time with respect to any issue. At no point in time did Mr. Fowler represent RMMII.
35. RMMII filed a law suit after the Estate's filing of the Fourth and Final Accounting, but the
conclusions asserted in Paragraph 35 with respect to that action are specifically denied.
36. Paragraph 36 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, the Estate gained an ownership interest in High-Spec, Inc., by operation of law, when
Robert M. Mumma, Sr. passed away and his estate was opened.
37. Paragraph 37 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. By way of
further answer, it is noted that the Estate gained an ownership interest in High-Spec, Inc., by operation of
law when Robert M. Mumma, Sr. passed away and his estate was opened. Further, the Estate had
standing as a shareholder of High-Spec, Inc., to initiated the Florida Litigation.
38. Again, Defendants confuse the concepts of standing and subject matter j urisdiction. It is
noted that the Estate had standing to initiate the Florida litigation and the Circuit Court in Florida had
jurisdiction to hear it.
39. Admitted that in Powers v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court made the statement that
standing is a "fundamental restriction on [a court's] authority." However, the case speaks for itself and any
conclusions drawn from that language are specifically denied.
40. Paragraph 40 contains conclusions of law to which no response is required. Byway of
further answer, the Estate asserts that the Amended Final Judgment is a final judgment in Florida, validly
entered, and it is due Full Faith and Credit pursuant to the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an Order dismissing
Defendants' Petition to Open/Strike and award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees.
Respectfully submitted,
MARTSON DEARDORI; F WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
I.D. Number 49813
Michael J. Collins, Esquire
I.D. No. 200427
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: November 28, 2006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
C IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
Z .? 67-38 MARTIN
COUNTY, FLORIDA
PROBATE DIVISION
IN RE: ESTATE OF Q' h
File Number C'
ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Division
Deceased
ORDER ADMITTING WILL OF NONRESIDENT TO PROBATE
AND APPOINTING PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
On the petition of Barbara MeK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan
for administration of the Florida estate of
Robert M. Mumma , deceased,
it appearing to the court from the petition and from the authenticated transcript of the domiciliary
proceedings in the estate of the decedent filed herein that the authenticated copy of the probated will
(and codicils, if any) of the decedent complies with Florida law and is entitled to probate in this state.
and that
Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan
rrentitled to appointment as personal representative,61 the Florida estate of the decedent by reason of
being named Co-Executrices in the decedent's Will dated May 19, 1982
and Codicil dated October 12, 1994, and acting as Co-Executrices in
probate proceedings in Cumberland County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
it is
ADJUDGED that the authenticated copy of the will (and codicils, if any) of the decedent is
admitted to probate according to law, and it is further
ADJUDGED that Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M._ Morgan
are
is appointed personal representative%of the Florida estate of the decedent, and that upon taking the
prescribed oath, filing ds ' nation of resident agent and acceptance, and entering into bond in the sum of
F
Letters of Administration shall be issued.
ORDERED this LL? day of JANUARY , 19 '87
cm ,
EXH BIT
A
Circuit Judge c,
r?r l
P00552
Form No. P•3.048
'n The Pinrids Rar )QU
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mary M. Price, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that
a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' Motion to Open/Strike was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Defendants
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
M Price
10 Ea igh Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: November 28, 2006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Hwy
.?
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
---- --------- - ----------------- - -- - --- - -- - ------------ - - - - -----------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA ML)NMA MORGAN, as
co-Executors of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUKIl A,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the (Plaintiff)
Residuary Trust under the Last?sWill of
Robert M. Murcia, deceased, and HIGH-SPEC, Inc.,
a Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
VS. (Defendant)
ROBERT M. MUAM4A II and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a
Florida corporation, No. 06 -2197 Civil Term
Defendant
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to
complaint, etc.):
Defendants Petition to Strike Foreigh Judgment or in the Alternative to Stay
Execution
2. Identify counsel who will argue cases:
(a) for plaintiff:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esq., 10 East High St., Carlisle, PA 17013
(Name and Address)
(b) forlrefi,eenci? !: Wiener, 2407 Park Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Name and Address)
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument.
4. Argument Court Date:
January 24, 2007
Date: December 11, 2006 Attorney for Plaintiffs
Michael J. Collins
Print your name
?tMl
- iii
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Supreme Ct. No. 18046
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 657-7701
Attorney for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, and NO. 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
LISA M. MORGAN as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a
Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY
OF EXECUTION
Defendants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc., (herein Defendants)
respectfully move the Court to enter a Stay of Execution on the Judgment
entered in this action for the following reasons. The Defendants have previously
filed Motions for Injunctions and a Motion for Reconsideration in the companion
case docketed at No. 2004-6183, and the latter Motion is currently pending
before the Honorable Edward E. Guido of this Court.
1
1. The Judgment was entered in this Court by the Plaintiffs on or about
April 19, 2006, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign
Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. 4306 (herein the Act).
2. The Judgment entered in Pennsylvania had initially been entered on
February 17, 2006, by the Honorable Robert Makemson in the State of Florida by
the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County,
Florida.
3. On December 29, 2006, the Plaintiffs caused a Writ of Execution to be
issued in this matter and that Writ was subsequently served on Mellon Bank as
Garnishee, along with Interrogatories and a Request for Production. See Exhibit
1, attached hereto. By its terms and on its face, the Writ of Execution was issued
on December 29, 2006, but the Interrogatories and Request for Production were
served on the Garnishee on December 28, 2006, and the Writ was not served on
counsel for the Defendants until January 4, 2006.
4. Section (d) of the Act says, "If the judgment debtor shows the court of
common pleas any ground upon which enforcement of a judgment of any court of
common pleas of this Commonwealth would be stayed, the court shall stay
enforcement of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period, upon requiring the
same security for satisfaction of the judgment which is required in this
Commonwealth." 42 Pa.C.S. 4306(d).
5. Rule 3121 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure says,
"Execution may be stayed by the court as to all or any part of the property of the
2
defendant upon its own motion or application of any party in interest showing ...
(2) any other legal or equitable ground therefor."
6. The Defendant has presented significant and substantial authority to
this Court that there are legal and equitable grounds for staying enforcement of
the Judgment entered herein, and the most compelling reason for such a stay is
because the Florida Court that entered the Judgment did not have subject matter
jurisdiction to do so.
7. In Bancorp Group, Inc. v. Pirgos, Inc., 744 A.2d 791 (Pa. Super. 2000),
the Superior Court said, "The full faith and credit clause does not require
recognition for a judgment of a sister state tendered without jurisdiction." 744
A.2d at 795. See also Reco Equipment Co. v. John T. Subrick Contracting, Inc.,
780 A.2d 684, 686 (Pa. Super. 2001)("In order for our courts to recognize a
[foreign] judgment as valid and enforceable, the sister state must have had
proper jurisdiction over the defendant and afforded him or her due process of
law.") The Commonwealth Court has similarly stated the rule that a judgment is
enforceable in another state only "if rendered by a court with adjudicatory
authority over the subject matter," citing Venezia Trucking v. W.C.A.B. (Invesco
Ins. Services), 694 A.2d 1172 (Pa.Commw.Ct. 1997) and Ferrelli v.
Commonwealth, 783 A.2d 891, 895 (Pa.Commw.Ct. 2001).
8. As Defendants have repeatedly asserted, the Florida Judgment was
based on a determination by the Florida Court that the Plaintiffs in that action
were shareholders of High-Spec, Inc., and the Florida Court did not have the
3
adjudicatory authority to make that determination because only this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction to make that determination.
9. As the Defendants argued in their Motion for Reconsideration, the law
of Pennsylvania is absolutely clear that the Orphans' Court Division of the Court
of Common Pleas has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the ownership rights of
a Decedent in any personal property. See 20 Pa.C.S. 711, Provident Trademens
Bank & Trust Co. v. Kabian, 414 Pa. 554, 201 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1966), and
Stevenson v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 197 A.2d 721 (Pa.
1964). Indeed, that rule has been consistently applied by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court. For a perhaps conclusive example, the statement of the law in
Pope v. Dascher, 429 Pa. 576, 240 A.2d 518 (Pa. 1968), might be dispositive of
the issue in this case. "[T]he Orphans' Court, to the exclusion of any other
tribunal, has sole jurisdiction to determine the question of title to this stock." 429
Pa. at 580, 240 A.2d at 520. And in In Re Estate of Donsavage, 420 Pa. 587, 218
A.2d 112 (Pa. 1966), the Supreme Court said, "if stock is registered in a
decedent's name, the Orphans' Court is given exclusive jurisdiction to determine
the title to such stock." 420 Pa. at 597, 218 A.2d at 117. See also Johnson v.
Trustees of the General Assembly, 408 Pa. 31, 182 A.2d 724 (Pa. 1962) ("[T]he
Orphans' Court has exclusive jurisdiction of the adjudication of title to personal
property `registered in the name of the decedent or his nominee."'); Gudleski v.
Liberty Bank of Mount Carmel, 405 Pa. 441, 176 A.2d 651 (Pa. 1962) ("The
exclusive jurisdiction of a controversy [involving title to personal property] lies on
the Orphans' Court."); Hallman v. Carr, 404 Pa. 216, 172 A.2d 160 (Pa. 1961); In
4
Re Estate of Rogan, 394 Pa. 137, 145 A.2d 530 (Pa. 1958). There is no authority
to the contrary.
10. Because the Florida Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to
decide the issue of ownership of the stock, its Judgment was void and this Court
should refuse to enforce it.
11. Notwithstanding the absence of adjudicatory authority in the Florida
Court, the Plaintiffs here have initiated a Writ of Execution on the Judgment
entered by that Court, and the law of Pennsylvania is clear that that a judgment is
enforceable in another state only "if rendered by a court with adjudicatory
authority over the subject matter," citing Venezia Trucking v. W.C.A.B. (Invesco
Ins. Services), 694 A.2d 1172 (Pa.Commw.Ct. 1997).
12. In its January 2, 2007 Order, this Court established a schedule for
briefing and argument of the issues raised in Defendants' Motion for
Reconsideration in the case docketed at No. 2004-6183, and Defendants submit
that the resolution of those issues might significantly affect all issues pending
before the Court.
13. Defendants respectfully submit that the Court should enter an Order
staying any further actions to enforce the Judgment entered in this case pending
the Court's resolution of the issues raised in the Petitions to Strike filed in this
action and in Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration docketed at No. 2004-
6183.
14. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, "the party seeking the stay
must make a strong showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal
5
as well as to show irreparable harm, and that the stay will not substantially harm
other interested parties or the public interest. This standard was first articulated
by this Court in Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Process Gas
Consumers Group, 502 Pa. 545, 467 A.2d 805 (1983), and governs when the
grant of a stay is warranted. As a rule, we assume that a party will establish the
existence of each criterion and that a court will assess the movant's chances for
success on appeal and weigh the equities as they affect the parties and the
public and, thereby, exercise its discretion to grant or deny a stay so that injustice
will not follow from the court's decision." Reading Anthracite Co. v. Rich, 525 Pa.
118, 577 A.2d 118 (Pa. 1990).
15. The first criterion requires "a strong showing that [the movant] is likely
to prevail on the merits of his appeal," and the Defendants have presented a
substantial argument in this Court that the Florida Judgment is void because the
Florida Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the issue of the
ownership of the High-Spec stock.
16. The Defendant will also prove that his injuries cannot be compensated
by damages because any further actions to execute on the judgment will
irreparably and adversely affect the Defendant's relationship with all lending
institutions involved in the garnishment actions.
17. The stay "will not substantially harm other interested parties or the
public interest'' because the Defendants will not be able to dispose of any assets
pending resolution of the appeals.
6
18. Defendants submit that they have demonstrated significant "legal or
equitable grounds" for staying any further attempts to execute on the Florida
Judgment that has been transferred to this Court.
19. In sum, Defendants submit that this Court should enter an Order
staying any further execution on the transferred Judgment entered in this action
until such time as this Court determines that the Florida Court had adjudicatory
authority, also known as subject matter jurisdiction, to decide the issue of the
ownership of the High-Spec stock. An appropriate Order is attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
20. Pursuant to Rule 208.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure
and Rule 208.3(a)(3) of this Court, Defendants submit that this Court should
enter a rule to show cause in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2 establishing
the procedure and briefing schedule for resolving this Motion.
21. On May 26, 2006, Defendants filed a Petition to Strike this Judgment
or in the Alternative to Stay Execution, and on or about October 26, 2006,
Defendants filed a Petition to Strike and/or Open the Judgment. Plaintiffs have
filed Answers to those Petitions, and on December 11, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a
Praecipe listing those Petitions for Argument Court scheduled for January 24,
2007. The Defendants respectfully submit that it would be appropriate for those
Petitions to be argued before the Honorable Edward E. Guido at the same time
as the Motion for Reconsideration and this Motion, and the proposed Order
submitted by Defendants as Exhibit 2 so provides.
7
22. Pursuant to Local Rule 208.3(a)(9), the undersigned hereby certifies
that, on January 8 and on January 9, 2007, he telephoned George B. Faller, Jr.,
Esquire, who is counsel of record for Defendants, to request his concurrence in
the foregoing Motion, and Mr. Faller did not return those calls prior to the filing of
this Motion.
WHEREFORE Defendants respectfully move the Court to 1) enter a rule
to show cause establishing a procedure and briefing schedule for resolving this
Motion, and 2) enter an Order staying any execution on the Judgment until this
Court decides the issue of the ownership of the High-Spec stock.
Dated: pectfully sub itted,
lbA?p
ERIC J. ER, ESQUIRE
Pa. Sup rFICES Court ID # 18046
LAW OF ERIC J. WIENER
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 657-7701
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am an employee of the Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
and that I served the foregoing Motion by placing a true and correct copy thereof
in the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Dated:
11910-7 Cindy Sow rs
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
9
?-_ ; r? __
t»i :J
?_?
r ?
?''
_ ?7s
_.-.. .{ --
` r,r _ i,
... ... ?.,r? "1 ,,,
u , -.?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIM DIVISION
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION
Caption: C3 Confessed Judgment
Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. ,-ss`` M??Ma hlcr?c^
?sf?t?c. at ?vbc!i M.Mw,..?. ?Othle
V. c SFecT Fde No. 06-2197
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.,?h
GARNISE?: Mellon Bank ? Amount Due $1,615,390.91
Interest $210.374/day from 4/19/06
Atty's Comm
Cosh **
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SAID COURT: ** to be cletentdmed by 1
The undersigned hereby certifier that the below does not arise out of a retail installment sale,
contract, or account based on a confession of judgment; but if it does, it is based on the appropriate original
proceeding filed pursuant to act 7 of 1966 ae amended; and for real property pursuant to Act 6 of 1974 u
amended.
Issue writ of execution in the above matter to the Sheriff of Cumberland
County, for debt, interest and costa, upon the following described property of the defendant (a)
Mellon Bank - Escrow Acommt No. 108443J4014,
and any other accounts held at said bank.
PRAECIPB FOR ATI'ACMWM EXECUTION
Issue writ of attachment to the Sheriff of Cummberland County, ft debt, interest
and costa, as above, directing attachment against the above-named gardahee(s) for the following property
(if real estate, supply six copies of the description; supply four copies of h? *-rsonaity lift)
Mellon Bank - Escrow Aecour?t No. 108443J40?1Y4,
and any other accounts held at said bank.
and all other property of the defendant(s) in the possession, custody or control of the said arnish
g ee(a).
? (Indicate) Index this writ against the garnishee (a) as a lu p a 'Pa Oof the
defendan a described in the attached exhibit.
Date Sigmahn:
Print Name: George ller r .
Address; 10 East High Stree
carlisl e, PA 17uli
Garnishee's Address
Attorney for.
Telephone:
Plaintiff
Mellon Bank
215 Senate Avenue
West Shore Office Center
suite 100
Camp Hill, PA 17101-2325
717-243-3341
Supreme Court ID No: 49813
C --+
E
p
C?l
? ^ P N
r
h S
n r
S ;+ 0
WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA)
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND)
N006-2197 Civil
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due BARBARA MCK MUMMA, LISA MUMMA
MORGAN, ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., Plaintiff (s)
From ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
(1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell .
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession
of MELLON BANK, 215 SENATE AVENUE, WEST SHORE OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 100,
CAMP HILL, PA 17101-2325
GARNISHEE(S) as follows:
ESCROW ACCOUNT NO. 108443J4014, AND ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS HELD AT SAID BANK.
and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from
paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant
(s) or otherwise disposing thereof;
(3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession
of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a
garnishee and is enjoined as above stated.
Amount Due$ 1,615,390.91
Interest $210.374/DAY FROM 4/19/06
Atty's Comm %
Arty Paid $38.00
Plaintiff Paid
Date: DECEMBER 29, 2006
(Seal)
L.L. $.50
Due Prothy $1.00
Other Costs
Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary By: o? Gtc ti+-? 61,
i?
Deputy
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name GEORGE B. FALLER, JR. ESQUIRE
Address: 10 EAST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Attorney for: PLAINTIFF
Telephone: 717-243-3341
Supreme Court ID No. 49813
C
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, and NO. 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
LISA M. MORGAN as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a
Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH- :
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
NOW, this day of January, 2007, a Rule is hereby entered on
Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested in the foregoing Motion should
not be granted, according to the following procedure.
1. The Defendants shall file a Brief in support of their Motion by January
22, 2007, the date previously set for filing of Defendants' Brief in support of
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the case docketed at No. 2004-6183.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file an Answer to the Defendants' Motion for Stay
and a supporting Brief by February 4, 2007, the date previously set for filing of
Plaintiffs' Brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the
case docketed at No. 2004-6183.
r
I A hearing on Defendants' Motion for Stay is hereby scheduled before
the Honorable Edward E. Guido on February 16, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.
4. Oral argument regarding Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the
case docketed at No. 2004-6183 shall be held on February 16, 2007,
immediately following the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Stay, and Briefs
shall be submitted to the Court according to the schedule established in this
Court's January 2, 2007 Order.
5. Defendants shall file a Brief in support of the Petitions to Strike by
January 22, 2007, and Plaintiffs shall file a Brief in opposition to those Petitions
by February 4, 2007.
6. Oral argument regarding the Petitions to Strike shall be held on
February 16, 2007.
7. Execution on the Judgment entered herein is hereby stayed pending
further Order of this Court.
THE COU
Edward E. Guido, Judge
Exhibit 2 to Defendants' Motion for Stay
'Aid
S ',' .Z k'd 81 Vr LODZ
!?' 3o
S
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, and NO. 06 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
LISA M. MORGAN as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will and
Testament of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and High-Spec, Inc., a
Florida Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation,
Defendants
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE
NOW, this day of January, 2007, a Rule is hereby entered on
Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested in the foregoing Motion should
not be granted, according to the following procedure.
1. The Defendants shall file a Brief in support of their Motion by January
22, 2007, the date previously set for filing of Defendants' Brief in support of
Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the case docketed at No. 2004-6183.
2. The Plaintiffs shall file an Answer to the Defendants' Motion for Stay
and a supporting Brief by February 4, 2007, the date previously set for filing of
Plaintiffs' Brief in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the
case docketed at No. 2004-6183.
1
?I
I A hearing on Defendants' Motion for Stay is hereby scheduled before
the Honorable Edward E. Guido on February 16, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.
4. Oral argument regarding Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration in the
case docketed at No. 2004-6183 shall be held on February 16, 2007,
immediately following the hearing on Defendants' Motion for Stay, and Briefs
shall be submitted to the Court according to the schedule established in this
Court's January 2, 2007 Order.
5. Defendants shall file a Brief in support of the Petitions to Strike by
January 22, 2007, and Plaintiffs shall file a Brief in opposition to those Petitions
by February 4, 2007.
6. Oral argument regarding the Petitions to Strike shall be held on
February 16, 2007.
7. Execution on the Judgment entered herein is hereby stayed pending
further Order of this Court.
THE COU
Edward E. Guido, Judge
Exhibit 2 to Defendants' Motion for Stay
i v *Z Wd 8 l NVr [OOZ
'31a j0
3 jI-140-Q311j
r -%
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
Daniel S. Bernheim, 3d, Esquire
Lauren R. Berschler, Esquire
Identification Nos. 32736, 88209
Two Penn Center, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 569-0000
--------------------X
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Defendants,
V.
MELLON BANK,
Garnishee.
------------------------------X
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Attorneys for Garnishee,
Mellon Bank
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
No. 06-2197
Civil Action
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Garnishee, Mellon Bank in the above-captioned
action.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: January 26, 2007
#2850791 (999999.185)
LENTZ G?OL-DcMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
BY: L wC J dc•-
Daniel S. Bernheim, 3d, Esquire
Lauren R. Berschler, Esquire
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, DANIEL S. BERNHEIM, 3d, certify that on January 26, 2007, I caused a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance to be served by first-class mail, postage
prepaid upon the following:
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorneys for Defendants
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
BY: )/[- 5 1 J,e.s r?
Daniel S. Bernheim, 3d, Esquire
Lauren R. Berschler, Esquire
Attorneys for Garnishee, Mellon Bank
? -,?
? .--;
? ??:??
+*w
F:\FILES\DATAFILE\Munmta 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844. I.Mumma Estate\5844.5.reply.motionforstay/nim
Created: 9/20/04 0:06PM
Revised: 2/2/07 0,17PM
5844.5
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 49813
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO
GILROY & FALLER
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
a dissolved Florida corporation,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.: 06 - 2197
CIVIL TERM
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, MARTS ON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and hereby replies to Defendants' Motion for Stay of
Execution as follows:
I. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted that Plaintiffs caused a Writ of Execution to be issued in this matter, serving
the same on Mellon Bank as garnishee, along with Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents. The balance of the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 are denied. By way of further
answer, the writ, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents were served on Mellon
Bank on December 29, 2006 and on Attorney Eric J. Wiener, Esq., on January 3, 2007. True and
accurate copies of the cover letters served with those documents are attached hereto collectively as
Exhibit "A."
4. Paragraph 4 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, 42 Pa.C.S. § 4306(d) speaks for itself. Additionally, §4306(d) calls for a stay if
judgment debtor posts bond in the amount of the judgement. Bond has not been posted in the instant
case; therefore stay should be denied. See §4306(d) (providing that "the court shall stay enforcement
of the foreign judgment for an appropriate period, upon requiring the same security for
satisfaction of the judgment...") (emphasis added).
5. Paragraph 5 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, Rule 3121 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure speaks for itself. The
Estate points out, however, that even under this Rule a stay is permissive and not mandatory. See
Rule 3121(b) (providing that "[e]xecution may be stayed..." under certain circumstances)(emphasis
added).
6. Paragraph 6 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied.
7. Paragraph 7 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, the caselaw contained in Paragraph 7 speaks for itself and argument re: the same
is best left for brief and oral argument.
8. Denied. Defendants have not repeatedly asserted that the Florida Judgment was based
on a determination by the Florida Court that the Plaintiffs in that action were shareholders of High-
Spec, Inc. That was the Estate's assertion. The Estate argued that the issue of ownership was res
judicata because the same was raised and rejected in the Florida Action. Defendants have
continuously argued that the Florida Court did not adjudicate ownership interest in the Florida
Action. Defendants are arguing inconsistent positions in this and recent Motions. The balance of
the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 are denied as legal conclusions and interpretations of the
law.
9. Paragraph 9 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, the caselaw contained in Paragraph 9 speaks for itself and argument re: the same
is best left for brief and oral argument.
10. Paragraph 10 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied.
11. Paragraph 11 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, the caselaw contained in Paragraph 11 speaks for itself and argument re: the same
is best left for brief and oral argument.
12. Denied. On January 18, 2007, the Court issued a scheduling order which provided
for the following: 1) hearing and argument on the Motion for Stay (06-2197) to begin at 1:30 p.m.,
on February 16, 2007; 2) argument on the Motion for Reconsideration (04-6183) to follow the
hearing and argument on the Motion for Stay; and 3) argument on the Second Petition to Open/Strike
(06-2197) to follow the Motion for Reconsideration. The Order also set deadlines for replying to
and briefing said motions. The Court consolidated the three motions ostensibly because they all
relate to the question of whether the Florida Court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Florida
Action which resulted in the Amended Final Judgment. The balance of the allegations contained in
Paragraph 12 are conclusion or interpretations of the law and are thus denied.
13. Paragraph 13 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. Byway
of further answer, the Court may not enter an Order staying execution unless Defendants post bond.
Even if stay is construed as being discretionary, this Court should not stay execution because the
Florida Court had subject matter jurisdiction.
14. Paragraph 14 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, the caselaw contained in Paragraph 14 speaks for itself and argument re: the same
is best left for brief and oral argument.
15. Paragraph 15 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied.
16. Paragraph 16 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer it is believed and therefore averred that Robert M. Mumma, II, has other money
judgments against him. Therefore any damage that execution could conceivably do to his
relationship with a lending institution has already been done. Ultimately, all potential injury to
RMMII can be compensated by money damages.
17. Paragraph 17 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied. By way
of further answer, staying the execution of a validly entered judgment substantially harms the Estate
and the public interest in having judgments enforceable.
18. Paragraph 18 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied.
19. Paragraph 19 is a conclusion or interpretation of the law and is thus denied.
20. No response required.
21. Admitted that the Petitions were filed on the dates reflected in Paragraph 21. It is
denied that the first Petition to Open/Strike filed on or about May 26, 2006 should be relitgated.
RMMII had an opportunity to present evidence and argument on that Motion and that Motion was
denied. The only matter for hearing an argument in the instant case is the Motion for Stay. The
second Motion to Open/Strike filed on or about October 26, 2006, will be argued on
February 16, 2007, by court order.
22. As to whether Attorney Wiener called Attorney Faller on the particular days averred,
Plaintiffs do not have knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this
averment. By way of further answer, however, Plaintiffs would not have concurred with this Motion
if Attorney Wiener had contacted counsel for the Estate.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court DENY Defendants' Motion for Stay.
NEW MATTER
23. Paragraphs 1-22 are incorporated herein by reference.
24. RMMII argues inconsistent positions. He requests that this Court reconsider its
summaryjudgment determination in the 04-6183 action, but if RMMII is correct about his subject
matter jurisdiction argument, the 04-6183 action should be dismissed anyway for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
25. Additionally, RMMII recently stipulated to have $868,065.47 transferred from
Dauphin Deposit Bank to the Florida Receiver. A true and accurate copy of that stipulation and
resulting court order is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
26. This factual stipulation essentially acknowledges jurisdiction for the Florida Court
to issue the Amended Final Judgment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court DENY Defendants' Motion for Stay.
Respectfully submitted,
By:
George
I.D. No
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
I.D. No. 27763
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO
GILROY & FALLER
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Date: February 2, 2007
i?l a?r«EOPAP??
Y
;U E.\, Hlcti S, <1 . .
FL I ._! !PAL 71 ' t3- - 11
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
December 29, 2006
Cumberland County Sheriff's Office
RE: Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma, II, et al. v. Mellon Bank,
garnishee
No. 06-2197 Civil - Cumberland County C.C.P.
Our File No. 5844.5
Dear Sheriff Kline:
We enclose the following:
A Writ of Execution together with Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed
to Garnishee and Interrogatories Addressed to Garnishee for service upon Mellon Bank, 215 Senate
Avenue - Suite 100, West Shore Office Center, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2325.
A check payable to your office in the amount of $150.00 for your service fees in this matter is
attached. An envelope for return of the service form is also included.
We thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, please feel
free to contact us.
Very truly yours,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
George B. Faller, Jr.
GBFjad
Enclosures
F' ILLS'D.A7'.AFILF Vi.tmr-a 444 1 to>utr) 374'tK n•: 5S44 I MLIX d Hs(ate 5944 5 xs I
Exhibit "A"
1 v? F 0 R fI v T 1 0 N A 1) V I (' r A :) l t' v 1
C P!
j\i'. i"i
January 3, 2007
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
1
i !I
i
iI
RE: Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. v. Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc.
No. 06-2197 Civil - Cumberland County C.C.P.
Our File No. 5844.5
Dear Eric:
Enclosed is a copy of the Praecipe for Writ of Execution filed with the Cumberland County
Prothonotary on December-') 9, 2006. Also enclosed are copies of the Interrogatories and Request for
Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Garnishee in the above matter.
Please contact my office if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
George B. Faller, Jr.
GBF, jad
Enclosures
I- I ILF S'D:\1'Ai ILC.'M.,i r.ta 4541 i e11,T6 S747 tKwir,`344 1 \tnnma Btate'is44 5 e,4
R\1 rI')" - A1)"'IcI- - o%.)t t 1
i ? RE?Cf tll PAPFR
(YCI ABLE
E )c A h "4 ``-p
NOV Is ME
{
2AR13 -%RA McK N,11 any: I? THE CO,.;RT OF C0\4:Q0N P: EIS Or
LIS A M. MORG_ N,
Co-Executrices of the
Estate of Robert M. Mumma. Deceased.
C'-'N IBERL. \D O'?1T?`, PE ?15?"L? _4'?L?
N0. 2 i EOUI-Lr ! 99?
Plaintiffs
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II,
Defendant
IN EQUITY
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, after consideration of the joint stipulation of the parties, this court directs
that the funds currently held by M&T Bank in Certificate of Deposit Number 031003914025729
in the amount of $857,918.16 (as of November 1, 2006) and any interest subsequently accrued,
be released and delivered to the receiver, April Hicks and sent to her attorney, Kenneth A.
Norman, Esquire, McCarthy, Summers, Bobko, Wood, Sawyer & Perry, P.A., 2400 S.E. Federal
Highway, Fourth Floor, Stuart, Florida 34994.
fsovem?eR 211 WOlo BY THE COURT,
BY S
J.
TRUE Cf%,Oi 'v RECORD
Testlmor? r, et my hand
and he seal of Pa.
m .. 3?. I? o..., j
Prothono4y
Exhibit "B"
Michael J. Collins, Esquire
MART SON DE!aDORFF `V?'IL? IA CIS & OTTO
PA ID. 200427; NJ 2620240
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
mcollins cumdwo.com
Attorneys for Estate of Robert W. Mumma
.. J
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA M. MORGAN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Co-Executrices of the
Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Deceased, NO. 21 EQUITY 1993
Plaintiffs
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II,
Defendant IN EQUITY
STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
The parties, by and through their respective attorneys, hereby agree and stipulate as
follows:
1. On May 27, 1993, Judge Hess issued an order directing that the proceeds from the
sale of a piece of real estate, known as Lemoyne Square, be held in a certificate of deposit at
Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company (which is now M&T Bank), and prohibiting
withdrawal from the certificate of deposit until authorized by further Court Order. A true and
accurate copy of this order is attached hereto as "Exhibit A" and is incorporated herein by
reference.
2. The certificate of deposit held by M&T Bank which is subject to the Cumberland
County Court of Common Pleas Order is certificate number 031003914025729 in the amount of
5857,918.16 (as of November 1. 2006) with a maturity date of November 10. 2006 (hereinafter
the "Certificate of Deposit")
3. On June 18, 1993, in a related civil action pending in Florida ("the Florida
Action") Judge Mark Ciana issued an order acquiescing to Judge Hess's May 27, 1993 Order of
Court. Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company (now tit&T Bank) was not a party, to the
b3i}3aS.l
Florida Action. A true and accurate cony of this order is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and is
incorporated herein by reference.
4. Subsequently.. the Florida Action. Judge iblark Ciana issued an order on August 1,
1994, directing that the funds in Dauphin Deposit Bank and Trust Company be released to the
parties in Florida. A true and accurate copy of this order is attached hereto as "Exhibit U and is
incorporated herein by reference.
5. The Florida court has ordered that a receivership be set up to collect and distribute
High-Spec, Inc., assets pursuant to an Amended Final Judgment (which amended final judgment
remains the subject of a pending appeal).
6. The Florida Receiver, April Hicks, has attempted to collect the Certificate of
Deposit at M&T Bank, but the bank cannot to release those funds until this court issues an Order
directing that the funds be delivered to the Receiver.
7. The parties hereby agree that the funds currently held by M&T Bank in the
Certificate of Deposit pursuant to this Court's Order should be released to the Receiver, April
Hicks and delivered to her attorney, Kenneth A. Norman, Esquire, McCarthy, Summers, Bobko,
Wood, Sawyer, & Perry, P.A., 2400 S. E. Federal Highway, Fourth Floor, Stuart, Florida 34994.
WHEREFORE, the parties request that this Court issue an order directing that the funds
currently being held by M&T Bank in the Certificate of Deposit be delivered to the Florida
Receiver, in the form of an Order attached.
MARTSON DEARDORFF
WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
Michael J. Collins, Esquire
PA ID. 200427; NJ 2620240
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(-1 17) 243-3341
Attornevs for Plaintiffs
LA/ W?F'ICES OF C J. WIENER
By
Eric J. ner, Esquire
PA ID. 8046
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 657-7701
Attornevs for Defendant
L/ v
BARBARA WX MUMMA, atld t rX TFS COURT OF COMMON PL" OF
LrSA U, MOROM, t CUbff SW-A NIa CO NTY, PBNNSYLVAKA
t:.o• mtrfces of the
F.amft of Robert M, H=MI6
IJeoused, ;
Plai;tt NO. 21 EQx. M 1994
RODBRT A M ADIA, Z
Dcandsat t W EQUITY
AAM 1Yf5W0 " &#' clay of M&y,1991; sftar hots P& it AM*A MS tba tba
defandnnt ties Wed to caaar:ply 0b tho 4pc mCnt of the part es dated NcNt mbOt 25, 1991, and
that the requiremAnu of a prolimix" Lsjuncdon bwe otberwtec beers Me; Mdlnl tInnt
resolution of the matter and wltbaut prejud des to dthcr party to be hood la the couru of
Ponds ors oartgn rclaW bsue4 It is arderc;d and directed:
1. Task t2to Ptmects of the stile of a partxl of root orate In Lemoyne Square.
La maytse, Ionnsyylvaada„ tho tubjM of these proetedlW, curtOdy deWAtcsir arcordbV to tht
defmdmic, in it certifti a of deposit a the DsupWu Deposit Bank shrill bd arid coma to on
doMIt with said Dauphin I4posit 13011 Or any other bank whom said tuns sway be Ott cSepa to
And that no withdt` wla 01 any pordoa theraof thou be made by aay Wj heraco or chair *Pw
unless utd WO sews is autho*d by a court of cornpeteat Juriidicdon.
2. TiUt the ahndarrt tmnmedlately provide natdca to the said Daupblu Deposit
Back4 or any bask whcrt tsld sums rosy be on deposit, of the azixtauce of lids order utd tbut.
within fDrtY--6Vd bows, tho dofcmdant provido to rho ptslntiM t2ia ldeutity of sAd ccrt om o:
deposit by pr+ovtdIng its socauut nusger, the esaot amount on deposik And trio We" i rush m
Exhibit "A"
P03094
of deposit. Nothing hatala thU r4cclude tho plakdff from maldag lmmedlata jorvice, upon the
mid D&Uphio Depotit Bank or my otbor appropriate Igstitution, of a copy of tWx order.
BY THE COURT,
RoWd M. Kxtaaaxn, lbqudro
For the PWatifs
Androw S. Goldo4. Baquirc
For the DeNudut
.rim
TRUE COPY
In Testimony where f,
and he seal of sai c(
4 ..... ........
FROM RECORD
I here unto set my hand
cult at Ldislel Pa.
IN TEE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
HINSTBSNTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR MARTIN. COUNTY,
FLORIDA
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA and LISA.
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUNMA,
and HI-SPEC, INC.,..& Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Vol
CASE NO.: 89-503 CA'
JUDGES CIANCA C._
ROBERT MUMMA, II, and HI SPEC, INC.,
FIRST FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Defendants.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for the Imposition of Sanctions or a Constructive Trust,
and Motion for Contempt, and the Court having heard argument. from
counsel, finds that:
.16 An Order with regard to Motion for Preliminary ,
Injunction was entered on May 27,. 1993, in-the.Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Said Order shall be
recognized and acquiesced to by.this Court, and. the Defendant
.heroin shall comply with said Order.
2. Thai.-fu'ds .in the amount of. $337,.605.82. shall remain.
intact as a certificate of deposit for High. Spec, Inc.,. with
Dauphin Deposit Bank ,until the dispo4itioni. f this action and
.further Order of the Court.
3. The Defendant shall comply with this Order and the Order
Exhibit "B"
P03088
of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland-County, Pennsylvania,
No. 21 Equity 1993.
4. The Motion insofar as 4 constructive trust is moot as a
result of said foreign court order. F
5. Plaintiffs' Notion for sanctions and Contempt is hereby
denied without prejudice in the event the Defendant fails to
comply with this Order or the Order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, No. 21 Equity 1993.
DONE and ORDERED: this f^,, day of June, 1993, in Stuart,
Martin County, Florida.
C A. CIANCA, CIRCUIT JUDN
Copies furnished to:
Jordan Fields, Esq.
Paul R., Reqensdorf, Esq.
XWWA\8.ucei"-09d
PC3C89
?-01 t= IELLS WILK INS ON 40'72titii
i f
.
IN THB CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 19TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ANO FOR
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE No. 89-503 CA (Cianoa)
BARBARA MCK, M'LTWA, at al. ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT MUMMA, II, at al.,
Dsfandants.
,?TIPOL?ITION
The parties hereto, by and through the undersigned counsel,
hereby stipulate and agree as followst
1. Pursuant to the final judgment the parties were under ran
obligation to complete a final accounting by April 29, 1994.
2. The parties have agreed, in order to save time and
additional accounting fees, to attempt to resolve the final
accounting by authorizing George Hadley, CPA on behalf of the
plaintiffs, and Bruos Brown, CPA on behalf of the defendant, to
reach a joint and agreed upon final accounting for the wind up of
High Spec, Ino.
3. This stipulation shall effect a stay of the ardor of this
Court requiring an accounting by April 29, 1994.
4. Eaoh party will bear the coats of their own accountant.
5. The services of any third party accountant will be stayed
pending the possible agreed to final accounting,
6. In the event the above referenced accountants are unable
to ogres to a final accounting, this stipulation shall, terminate
upon notice from one party to the other that a final accounting
Exhibit "C"
PCCC14
MAY 27 '94 11:35 40728131728 PAGE.002
X"TYN CIRCUIT COVAT Came 06. 89-503-CA
cannot be agreed upon. The accountants shall render a final
acoounting no later than 45 days from the date of this stipulation.
If the agreed to accounting is not completed within 45 days, this
stipulation is automatically terminated. If this stipulation is
terminated the third party accountant shall eomplett the final
aoaountinq within three (3) weeks from the date this stipulation is
terminated. Upon the termination of this stipulation the parties
are subject to all previous orders of court.
7. The parties further agree and stipulate to transfer the
funds currently held pursuant to court order in Pennsylvania to
Florida.
e. The parties will exeoute and submit a stipulation and
order thereon to the appropriate court in Pennsylvania to release
the funds pursuant to the following t*rms and conditions:
A. The money will be delivered to Gary Sweet, Beg.,
1104 South Federal Highway, Stuart, Florida an
escrow agent.
B. The escrow agent will be instruated to place said
funds in an interest bearing account at a federally
insured lending institution as agreed upon by both
parties.
C. The escrow agent shall hold the money subject to a
final judgment entered in this cause and subject to
2
P00015
MAY 27 194 11:36 4072881728 PAGE.003
VW
IMAATIN CIRCUIT COURT CAN& NO- 99-603-Ch
any further order of this Court or further
stipulation of the parties.
WHIREFORE, the portion submit the aboAve stipulation.
FIELDS 6 WILKINSON, P.A. BUCHANAN INGXRSOLL, Y.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys rozr Defendants
496 Cortea Avenue One Turnberry Place
Stuart, Florida 34994 19495 Biscayne Blvd.
(407) 286-0890 suite 606
North Miami Beach, Fla. 33180
(305) 933 56
BY BYt
n 3-4 0 sq. J rem A. Koss Esq..
Florida Bar No. 205745 F on a Bair No 612900
Datedt May p/, 1994 Dated: ay 2-70 1994
The Court being advised of a Stipulation between the parties,
having reviewed the file and being otherwise fully advised in the
premises, it is
ORDNRBD AND AbJUDOBD t
i. The terms of the Stipulation for Settlement entered into
between the parties is adopted by the Court and incorporated into
this order.
DONX AND ORDLREJD in Chambers., at ;Stuart, Martin County,
Florida this day of. , 1994.
Copies furnished to:
Jordan Fields, Esq.
Jeremy A, Kods, Esq,
3
MAY 27 '94 11:36
?GIIG 42
CIRCUIT COUNT A E
40728BJ 728 PAGE.P"Q16
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA and LISA.
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
and HI-SPEC, INC.,,.& Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs,
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN-AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO-$ 89-503 CA,
JUDGE s CIANCA C.
V80
ROBERT MUMMA, II, and HI SPEC, INC.,
FIRST FLORIDA DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Defendants.
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on the Plaintiffs'
Motion for the Imposition of Sanctions or a Constructive Trust,
and Motion•for Contempt, and the Court having heard argument from
counsel, finds that:
.10 An Order with regard to Motion for Preliminary ,
Injunction was entered on May 270'; 1993, in•the.Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, .'Said Order shall be
recognized and acquiesced to by-this Court; and.the Defendant
herein shall comply with said Order.
2. T",.:fuAds In the amount of. $337,.605.82 shall :remain.
intact as a certificate of deposit for•High.Spec, Inc., with
Dauphin Deposit Hank until the dis' 'itioa of this action and
.further Order of the Court
3. The Defendant shall comply with this Order and the Order
P03088
of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland"County, Pennsylvania,
No. 21 Equity 1993.
4. The Motion insofar as 4 constructive trust is moot as a
result of said foreign court order. F
5. Plaintiffs, Motion for Sanctions and Contempt is hereby
denied without prejudice in the event the Defendant fails to
comply with this Order or the Order of.the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, No. 21 Equity 1993.
DONE and ORDERED. this IIi day. of June, 1993, in Stuart,
Martin County, Florida. ..1-
C A. CIANCA, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Jordan Fields, Esq.
Paul R.- Regensdorf, Esq.
P03089
F \FiLES1DATAFILEVMumma 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844,1 Mumma Estate\5844.1 equity2l cert.servwe
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jacqueline A. Decker, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that
a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of the Parties was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at
Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO
By (?.
Ceaasstitigh e A. Decker
10 Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: November 27, 2006
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa A. Scholly, an authorized agent of Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy &
Faller, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Motion for Stay
of Execution was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class
mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Law Offices of Eric J. Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Defendants
Daniel S. Bernheim, III, Esquire
Lauren R. Berschler, Esquire
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER
Two Penn Center, Suite 910
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Counsel for Garnishee, Mellon Bank
MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO
GILROY & FALLER
nn R
By Melissa A. Scholly
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: February 2, 2007 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs
= c-3
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
To the Prothonotary:
Please take note of the entry of appearance of Mark A. Fink and John J. Calkins of
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP on behalf of the Defendants, Robert M. Mumma II
and High-Spec, Inc., in the above titled action, upon whom papers may be served and notices
forwarded to the address indicated below.
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSC I N TH OSENTHAL LLP
By:
Mark A. . No. $ 98)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1089
(212) 768-6700
(212) 768-6800 (facsimile)
John J. Calkins (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark A. Fink, do hereby certify that on February 13, 2007, the foregoing Praecipe for
Entry of Appearance was served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:
No V. Otto, IIl, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Eric Wiener
2407 Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 657-7701
?."?
f , .--
?Tl... r???C?
--?
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA MUMMA:
MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes of the
Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of
the Residuary Trust under the
Last Will of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and HIGH SPEC, INC., a
dissolved Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs
VS
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and HIGH-
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2007, after having
reviewed the briefs filed by the parties in support of their
respective positions and having heard argument thereon, the
petition of Robert M. Mummao strike/open judgment is denied.
By t, Court,
Edward E. Guido, J.
/Vo V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
/-ric J. Wiener, Esquire
For Defendants
:mlc A
9
Z0 :6 V ZZ 0IJ LOOZ
AdVi0N0,HIUtj'd 3HI JO
0
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc., defendants above
named, hereby appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from the order entered in this matter
on the 16th day of February, 2007. This order has been entered in the docket as evidenced by the
attached copy of the docket entry.
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By: L 1,4
Jo J. Cal ' s (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorney for Defendants
Date: March 15, 2007
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT
A Notice of Appeal having been filed in this matter, the official court reporter is hereby
ordered to produce, certify and file the transcript in this matter in conformity with Rule 1922 of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By: I-1
Jo . Calki Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SONNENS EIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorney for Defendants
Date: March 15, 2007
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John J. Calkins, do hereby certify that on March 15, 2007, the foregoing Notice of
Appeal, Order for Transcript, and this Certificate of Service were served by first class mail,
postage prepaid on the following:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Honorable Edward E. Guido
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Mandy L. Cortez, RPR
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Official Court Reporter
Taryn N. Dixon, Esquire
District Court Administrator
Court Administrator's Office
1 Courthouse Square, 3R
Carlisle, PA 17013
- dl?- , I L
J J. Ca ns (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
ONNEN CHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorney for Defendants
a.
a
c?
CA
C1 .
L
c?
It
6m
F: ?F1LESIDATAFILE\Mumma 5844 1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844. I. Mumma Estate\5844 5. order)
` Created. 9/?0/04 0 00M
Devised: 3/8/07 432PM
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trst under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and HIGH
SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a dissolved
Florida Corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW this day of March, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant Robert M.
Mumma, II's Motion for Stay, and following an argument on the same, the motion is DENIED, and
the stay previously entered on January 18, 2007, is hereby lifted.
,
037
Edward E. Guido, J.
I 1 :g WV Z2 8vw LOOZ
30i :.4 M-
ROBERT M. MUMMA, IT, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
HIGH-SPEC, INC., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
VS NO. 04-6183 CIVIL TERM
IN ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, THE EXECUTRIXES OF:
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. .
MUMMA, LISA M. MORGAN and:
BARBARA McK. MUMMA, THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE:
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, :
and THE TRUSTEES OF THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE:
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, :
LISA M. MORGAN and
BARBARA McK. MUMMA,
Defendants
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Co--Executrixes of the
Es-ate of ROBERT M.
MUMMA, deceased, and as
Co--Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under, the: No.
Last Will of Robert M.
Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH SPEC, INC., a
dissolved Florida
corporation,
Plaintiffs
VS
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a
dissolved Florida
corporation,
Defendants
06-2197 CIVIL TERM
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
I;?T RE : ARGUMENT
Proceedings held before the
HONORABLE EDWARD E. GUIDO, J.,
Cumberland Countv Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
on Friday, February 16, 2007, in Courtroom Number 3.
APPEARANCES:
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
JOHN J. CALKINS, Esquire
WILLIAM E. COPLEY, III, Esquire
For Robert M. Mumma, II
LAW OFFICES OF ERIC J. WIENER
ERIC J. WIENER, Esquire
For Robert M. Mumma, II
MARTSON DEARDORFF WI:LLIAMS & OTTO
IVO V. OTTO, III, Esquire
GEORGE B. FALLER, JR., Esquire
For the Estate
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Co-Executrixes of the Estate of
ROBERT M. MUMMA, Deceased, and as
Co-Trustees of the Residuary Trust under the
Last Will of Robert M. Mumma, deceased,
and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida Corp.
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and NO. 2006 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida Corporation
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 20TH day of MARCH, 2007, Defendants' counsel is directed to file a
concise statement of matters complained of on appeal within fourteen (14) days of today's date in
accordance with Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
By the Court,
4 5;E
Edward E. Guido, J.
Xeorge Faller, Jr., Esquire
?"o J. Calkins, Esquire
sld
J
VINVtvl,,\SNN3d
'0114V U SVW LODZ
x`H C) O"H 0!8d 3HI JO
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Pursuant to Rule 1925 of the Local Rules for the Court of Common Please of
Cumberland County Pennsylvania, Defendants-Appellants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec,
Inc. hereby submit the following as their Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal:
I • Whether the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
("Court of Common Pleas") erred by according full faith and credit to the amended final
judgment issued by the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County,
Florida in Case No. 89-503 CA?
2. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by denying the Defendants-Appellants
petition to strike and/or open the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
in and for Martin County, Florida in Case No. 89-503 CA?
3 • Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by finding that the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida had subject matter jurisdiction in
Case No. 89-503 CA?
4. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by concluding that the Defendants-
Appellants waived the right to object to the subject matter jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida in Case No. 89-503 CA?
5. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by concluding that the Defendants-
Appellants were barred by the doctrine of laches from objecting to the subject matter jurisdiction
of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida in Case
No. 89-503 CA?
6. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by concluding that the Defendants-
Appellants were barred by the statute of limitations from objecting to the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County,
Florida in Case No. 89-503 CA?
7. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by concluding that it could transfer or
otherwise give effect to the judgment of the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in
and for Martin County, Florida in Case No. 89-503 CA in Pennsylvania even though the Circuit
Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County, Florida lacked subject matter
jurisdiction in Case No. 89-503 CA?
8. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred by concluding that the Orphans Court
of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the
ownership of stock owned by Robert M. Mumma Sr. at the time of his death, given that Robert
M. Mumma Sr. was a resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the time of his death?
-2-
9. Whether the Court of Common Pleas misconstrued or misapplied 20 Pa. C.S.A.
§ 711?
10. Whether the Court of Common Pleas erred in concluding that 20 Pa. C.S.A. § 711
does not affect the jurisdiction of courts outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSCHEIN NATY & ROSENTHAL LLP
By:
Bonn UaIk (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SO ENS E1N NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
13 1 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
Date: March 23, 2007
-3-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John J. Calkins, do hereby certify that on March 23, 2007, the foregoing Defendants-
Appellants' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal was served by Federal
Express on the following attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellees:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Tel: (717) 243-3341
I, John J. Calkins, do hereby further certify that on March 23, 2007, a copy of the
foregoing Defendants-Appellants' Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal was
served by Federal Express upon the following Judge of the Court of Common Pleas for
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania:
Honorable Edward E. Guido
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
_Pc,? - I-t
J J. Calki Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
N& ROSENTHAL LLP
13K rW., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
-4-
C'1
C r.3
?3
O
c: ?
v "ri
_It
M
Fr;
.
?.. t C)
-TI
{_ m
.. b
ri
-r
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
HIGH-SPEC, INC., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
V.
IN ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, THE EXECUTRIXES
OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT
M. MUMMA, LISA M. MORGAN
AND BARBARA MCK. MUMMA, :
THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER:
THE WILL OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, AND THE TRUSTEES
OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST
UNDER THE WILL OF ROBERT
M. MUMMA, LISA M. MORGAN
AND BARBARA MCK. MUMMA, :
Defendants
NO. 2004 - 6183 CIVIL TERM
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CO-EXECUTRIXES OF THE
ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, DECEASED, AND AS
CO-TRUSTEES OF THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER
THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT
M. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND
HIGH SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED
FLORIDA CORP.,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, AND NO. 2006 - 2197 CIVIL TERM
HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED :
FLORIDA CORP.,
Defendants
Y NO. 2004 - 6183 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., May I1 , 2007
The factual and procedural history of this complicated case, as well as the reasons
for our decision were fully set forth in the opinion accompanying our order of December
6, 2006 granting appellees' motion for summary judgment at 2004-6183 Civil Term. We
agreed to reconsider our decision and heard argument on the matter on February 16,
2007. At the same time we heard argument on the appellants' motion to open/strike the
judgment entered at 2006-2197 Civil Term.
At the commencement of his argument, appellant's attorney framed the issue as
follows:
There is one central issue that is certainly at the heart of both the Motion
for Reconsideration and the Petition to Strike or Reopen the Judgment and
that is whether or not the Florida Court had the power, had the
adjudicative authority to enter that final judgment in that case.l
We were satisfied that the Florida Court had jurisdiction of the matter before it.
Consequently, its decision was entitled to full faith and credit.
Appellant contended that the exclusive jurisdiction to determine the ownership of
decedent Robert M. Mumma's stock in High Spec, Inc. is vested in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumberland County Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Florida Courts had no
jurisdiction to enter the final judgment in the case before it. Appellant's position was
based upon language in several cases decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. For
example, "if stock is registered in a decedent's name, the Orphans' Court is given
exclusive jurisdiction to determine the title to such stock." In re: Estate of Donsavage,
420 Pa. 587, 597, 218 A.2d 112, 117 (1966). However, the cases relied upon by
i Transcript of Proceedings, February 16, 2007, p. 3 - 4.
2
NO. 2004 - 6183 CIVIL TERM
appellant are based upon Section 711 of the Pennsylvania Probate, Estates and Fiduciary
Code (20 Pa. C.S.A. Section 711). The section title is "Mandatory exercise of
jurisdiction through orphans' court division." The first paragraph provides that "the
jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas over the following shall be exercised through
its orphans' court division." Subsection (17) of that section includes title to personal
property owned or possessed by a decedent at the time of his death. 20 Pa. C.S.A.
Section 711 (17).
The statute and cases relied upon by appellant merely provide that if a court of
this Commonwealth is called upon to determine title to the personal property of a
decedent, it shall be done exclusively by the Orphans' Court division of the Court of
Common Pleas with jurisdiction over the matter. Nothing in the statute, or the cases
decided under it, would operate to nullify the jurisdi(
case.
DATE!
Vr66 J. Calkins, Esquire
William E. Copley III, Esquire
?Knc J. Wiener, Esquire J
?n'o V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
:sld
n this
Edward E. Guido, J.
3
17
?l TI
•
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
BARBARA MCK.MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-
EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED,
AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A
DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION
VS.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA
CORPORATION
2006-2197 Civil Term
462 bDA 2007
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 237; and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 0 -2007.
K
Lttis R. Long, Prothoric
Regina K. Lebo, Deputy
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please siLn and date copy, thereby
acknowledgine receipt of this record.
Date
Signature & Title
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
this 5 14?
I CurtiS R. Long , Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
Barbara Mck.Mtumia and Lisa M in na
Morgan et. al.
Plaintiff, and Robert M. fligm, TT And
High=Spec. Inc., a dicGn1yFA
FlOrl a Co ration
Defendant , as the same remains of record
beforq toe said Court at No. 06-2197 of
Civil Term, A. D. 19 .
set y hand and affixed te seal of said Court
d f _73"un ?J = A. D., XRZQDI.
Edgar B. Bayley President Judge of the Ni nth V
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curtis R. Long , by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned an ualified to s as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of ju is ure s e whe , nd t t the said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and ma b roper
V?P c r. G
I
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
President Judge
I, Curtis R_ Lnnq , Prothonotary bf the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere.
TESTIMO Y WHEREOF, I have hereunto
y hand and A the. seal of said Court 2tM7
?_ day !f -:W rt ? A. D..
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
county of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
462 MDA 2007
to No. 2006-2197 Civil Term, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF Appearanrc- DOCKET ENTRY
Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa
Mumma Morgan, as,Co-Executrixes of
of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and High Spec,
Inc., a dissolved Florida
Corporation
Vs.
Robert M. Mumma Il and High-Spec,
Inc., a dissolved Florida Corporation
George B. Faller, Jr.,11 Esq.
Mark A. Fink, Esq.
John J. Calkins, Esq.
**See Certified Docket Entries**
W
U
. C
? r
N ? ±
°o
N
0
0 Z.
0
?a
°U
O
w
?i
L ,y
Q?
7 ?
t-a
N
°
s
0
0
U
a
U
M w
Qy '?
W
c
v
0
°
w
U W
w
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 1
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No..: Filed........: 4/19/2006
Case Type.....: EXEMPLIFIED RECORD Time.........: 4:06
Judgment.;....: 1615390.91 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 462 MDA 2007
Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
MCK MUMMA BARBARA PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MORGAN LISA MUMMA PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MUMMA ROBERT M ESTATE OF PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
HIGH-SPEC INC PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MUMMA ROBERT M II DEFENDANT FINK MARK A
6880 S E HARBOR CIRCLE CALKINS JOHN J
STUART FL 34996
HIGH-SPEC INC DEFENDANT FINK MARK A
68'80`S E HARBOR CIRCLE CALKINS JOHN J
STUART FL 34996
Judgment Index Amount Date Desc
MUMMA ROBERT M II 1,615,390.91 4/19/2006 EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
HIGH-SPEC INC 1,6151390.91 4/1972006 EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries
********************************************************************************
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - --- - - - - - - - - - - - .91 I- 3f 4/19/2006 COURTLOFITHERNINETEENTHHJUDICIAL OIRMiT1CbURT FORFMMARTINECOUNTYIT
FLORIDA
y0- Sg -------------------------------------------------------
5/26/2006 PETITION-TO-STRIKE-FOREIGN-JUDGMENT-OR-IN-THE-ALTERNATIVE-TO-STAY- -
EXECUTION - BY JUSTIN G WEBER ATTY
-------------------------------------------------- -
lp0'(o? 5/31/2006 PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VERIFICATION - BY JUSTIN G WEBER ATTY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-(py' 6/02/2006 ALANSWER TERNATOIVEETOTSTAY TEXECUT ONFBYEMICHAAELLGJE OLLLINSN ESQ EFOR PLFFS
----------------------------------------------
may,
6/02/2006 ORDER-TO-SHOW-CAUSE---06-02-06---IN-RE:-HEREBY-ORDERED-THAT: - - - - - - -
1. A RULE IS ISSUED ON THE RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED;
2. RESPONDENTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN 20
DAYS OF THIS DATE-
3. OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FACTUAL
DISPUTES WE WILL SCHEDULE A HEARING AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER
PARTY;
4. IF NO EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUESTED EITHER PARTY MAY LIST
THE MATTER FOR AUGUST COURT - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J 0 COPIES MAILED
06-05-06
---------------------------------------------------------------.----
10/26/2006 DEFTS' PETITION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT - BY ERIC J WIENER
ATTY FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7 0- 71 11/03/2006 ORDER - 11-03-06 - IN RE- ORDERED THAT:
1-RULE ISSUED UPON THk RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED
2-RESPONDENT SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN 20
DAYS OF SVC UPON THE RESPONDENT
3-IF ISSUES OF FACT ARE RAISED WE SHALL SCHEDULE A HEARING UPON
PETITION OF EITHER PARTY
4-IF NO ISSUES OF FACT ARE IN DISPUTE-EITHER PARTY MAY LIST THE
MATTER FOR ARGUMENT
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No. Filed........:
Case Type.....: EXEMPLIFIED RECORD Time.........:
Judgment..... • 1615390.91 Execution Date
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date.
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.:
Hi her Crt 2.:
9?-/aa 11/20/2006
g9 11/27/2006
j-0-130 11/28/2006
131 12/12/2006
13a-x.33 12/29/2006
/_V, /y3
/V?
,1/10/2007
1/11/2007
/ys
)Ll & -Iw
1/11/2007
1/18/2007
rage
4/19/2006
4:06
0/00/0000
0/0010000
462 MDA 2007
5-NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF HTIS ORDER SHALL BE PROVIDED TO ALL
PARTIES BY THE PETITIONER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED
11-06-06
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - BY GEORGE B FALLER JR ATTY
FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------- ----
ORDER - 11-27-06 - IN RE: PLFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS
GRANTED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 11-27-06
---------------------------------------------------------------
PLFFS'ANSWER-TO-DEFTS' PETITION TO STRIKE AND/OR-OPEN- JUDGMENT -
BY MICHAEL J COI4LINS ATTY FOR PLFFS
----------------'---------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFTS PETITION TO STRIKE
FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY EXECUTION - BY
MICHAEL J,COLLINS ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION AND WRIT OF EXECUTION ISSUED -
$2.50 PD ATTY - $1.00 DUE CO - $.50 DUE LL
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION - BY ERIC J WIENER ATTY
FOR DEFTS
----------------------------------------------- - - - -
SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret Type.: Garnishee
Litigant.: MUMMA ROBERT M II
Garnishee: MELLON BANK 214 SENATE AVE
Address..:
Ct //St/Zp: CAMP HILL, PA 17011
Sh /Dpty.: RONALD E. HOOVER
Hnd To: AARON ER SE VI?E REP)
copies... 33 Date/Time: (011], 2007 0012:20
Costs....: $0.00 Pd By: 01/11 007
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret Type.: Garnishee
Litigant.: HIGH-SPEC INC
Garnishee: MELLON BANK 214 SENATE AVE
Addres :
Ct /St% .- CAMP HILL, PA 17011
S
Hnd To: hf/Dpty.: RONALD E. HOOVER (SERVICE cosies.. AARON 3 DO e/ Bye: 01 /I?fff2007 0012:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE - 01-18-07 - RULE ENTERED ON PLFFS TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY RELEIF REQUESTED IN FOREGOING MOTION SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE:
1-DEFTS SHALL FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION BY
01-22-07 THE DATE PREVIOUSLY SET FOR FILING OF DEFTS' BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF DEFTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE CASE DOCKETED
AT 2004-6183
2-PLFFS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY
AND A SUPPORTING BRIEF BY 02-04-07 THE DATE PREVIOUSLY SET FOR
FILING OF PLFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION TNT HE CASE DOCKETED AT 2004-6183
3-A HEARING ON DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY IS SCHEDULED BEFORE
JUDGE GUIDO 02-16-07 AT 1:30 PM
4-ORAL ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN
THE CASE DOCKETED AT 04-6183 SHALL BE HELD ON 02-16-07 -
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY AND
BRIEFS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE
ESTABLISHED IN THIS COURT'S 01-02-07 ORDER
5-DEFTS SHALL FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONS TO
STRIKE BY 01-22-07 AND PLFFS SHALL FILE A ABRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
THOSE PEITIONS BY 02-04-07
6-ORAL ARGUMENT REGARDING THE PETITIONS TO STRIKE SHALL BE
HELD ON 02-16-07
PYS511 c:umneriana county rrotnonotary-s uLLiCe rays
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No..: Filed........: 4/19/2006
Case Type ..... : EXEMPLIFIED RECORD Time.........: 4:06
Judgment.;....: 1615390.91 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 462 MDA 2007
Higher Crt 2.:
7-EXECUTION ON THE JUDGMENT ENTERED HEREIN IS HEREY STAYED
PENDING-FURTHER ORDER OF COURT - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES
MAILED 01-18-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1/29/2007 PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE - BY DANIEL S BERNHEIM III ATTY FOR
GARNISHEE-MELLON BANK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
/7? 2/02/2007 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION - BY
GEORGE B FALLER JR ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
?7y_17S 2/15/2007 OF MARK PRAECIPE A FOR FINK AND JJOHNPJECALKINS NOTE OF THE
LLP ON BEHALF OF'THE DEFENDANTS ROBERT M MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC
INC IN THE ABOVE TITLED ACTION MARK A FINK AND JOHN J CALKINS ESQ
FOR DEFTS ,
--------- ---------------------------------------------------------
j7& 2/22/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 02-16-07 - IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M MUMMA II
TO STRIKE OPEN JUDGMENT IS DENIED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES
MAILED 02-22-07
-------------------------------------------------------------- - --
-/? 3/i6/2007 NPOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - BY JOHN J CALKINS ATTY FOR
------------------------------------------------------------------
3/21/2007 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 462 MDA 2007
-------------------------------------------------------------------ROBERT M l g?y_/grf 3/22/2007 03-14-07 -
STAY PREVIOUSLYTENTERED FOR SATY
LIFTED
BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 03-22-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------
?J9 2/23/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 03-20-07 - IN RE: DEFTS' COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO
FILE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL WITHIN
14 DAYS OF TODAY'S DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 1925B - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 03-23-07
-------------------------------------------------------------- -----
?9 3/23/2007 TRANSCRIPT-OF -PROCEEDINGS-_-02.16.07------------------------
/ 3/26/2007 DDEFAENDAANNTTS_APPPELLANTS'CCONCISEASTATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF
ON BY J FOR DEFTS
-----=-------------------------------------------------------------
a -a3 5/?.22007 OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - 05-18-07 - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J -
COPIES MAILED 05-22-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6/05/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO GEORGE B FALLER JR ESQ AND JOHN
J CALKINS ESQ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* Escrow Information
*.Fees & Debits Be Bal Pmts/Add End Bal
EX RECORD/SAT 10.00 10.00 .00
SATISFACTION 5.00 5.00 .00
AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
WRIT OF EFXEC 15.00 15.00 .00
WRIT TAX4EXEC .50 .50 .00
APPEAL H GH CT 48.00 48.00 .00
------------------------ ------------
83.50 83.50 .00
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand
and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa.
?Gn
This ....... ?......._. day of.,(,c .". .,
..............1P ....../.:.., ....
?? Prothonotary .
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
c
-------
1013-10/99 10/1/99
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq.
Prothonotary
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
September 19, 2007
RE: Mumma, B., et al v. Mumma, R., II, et al
No. 462 MDA 2007
Trial Court Docket Number: 06-2197
Dear :
100 Pine Street. Suite 4(x)
llarrisbure. PA 17101
717-772-1294
www. superior.court.state.pa. us
Enclosed please find a certified copy of an order dated September 19, 2007 entered in
the above-captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
WJT
c 1
4?7 444rez, mes D. McCulloug , Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
cc: George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Judge
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Barbara McK. Mumma, et al. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
(C.P. Cumberland County
V. No. 06-2197)
No. 462 MDA 2007
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al. Filed: September 1 2007
Upon consideration of the petition of appellees for modification of
the record, the petition is GRANTED as follows:
The trial court is directed to correct the record to include the
document described in appellees' motion. The trial court is further
directed to, within twenty-one (21) days, certify and transmit that
document as a supplemental record to be filed in this Court. See
P&R.A.P. 1926.
The Prothonotary of this Court shall provide the trial court with a
copy of this order, along with a copy of the petition, and shall notify
the parties when the supplemental certified record is filed.
Per Curiam
TRUE COPY FROM
Attest: SE P 19 200
e ;
St?fcr ?burt of PA - 11?ddte DID
No.: 462 MDA 2007
Carbon Copy Recipient List
Addressed To: John Joseph Calkins, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Carbon Copied: Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Sq
Carlisle, PA 17013
1013 -10/99 10/1/99
a ?i
F-'%1f"BS1 &== 5844.1 (estate) 8747 (Kim)\5844.1.Munv= BsfatO844.4.motion for modification
CrW"& 9/20104 0:06PM
Revised: 8116/07 2:44PM
5844.5
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, THE EXECUTES OF THE
ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
LISA M. MORGAN and BARBARA
McK. MUMMA, THE RESIDUARY
TRUST UNDER THE WILL OF ROBERT
M. MUMMA, and THE TRUSTEES OF
THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA
M. MORGAN and BARBARA McK.
MUMMA,
'LF
AUG '17 2001
SUPERIOR COURT
Mkk le DisM
Docket No. 462 MDA 2007
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA H, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the Order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania
No. 06-2197
PLAINTIFF-APPE LEES' PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF THE RECORD
AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs-Appellees, by and through their attorneys, MARTSON
DEARDORFF WILLIAMS OTTO GILROY & FALLER, and file the foregoing Petition for
Modification of the Record as follows:
1. On March 15, 2007, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania at 462 MDA 2007.
2. Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1931, the Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County transmitted the trial court record in this proceeding to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania.
3. The record transmitted to the Superior Court in this case from the trial court does not
include the most recent judgment from the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Mumma
v. Mumma. - So. 2d (Fla. 4 h DCA 2007)(decided August 8, 2007, but not final until
disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing), attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
4. The August 8, 2007 judgement from the District Court of Appeal of the State of
Florida remanded the case for a recalculation of interest, an amount that was relied on below in the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, and as result is central to issue being presented on
appeal.
5. Under Rule 1926 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, this Court may
order that any material omission from the record is corrected.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Appellee respectfully requests that the Court correct the record by
submitting the August 8, 2007 judgement from the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A," a supplemental record, so that the Superior Court will have the
complete record before it, for purposes of this appeal.
Respectfully Submitted,
MART ON LAW OFFICES
By.
George ler, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 49813
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: August 16, 2007 Attorney for Plaintiff: Appellee
.s
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
July Term 2007
ROBERT MUMMA II and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida
corporation,
Appellants,
V.
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA and LISA MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-
Executrixes of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA, deceased, and as Co-
Trustees of the Residuary Trust under the last will of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a dissolved Florida corporation,
Appellees
No. 4D06-1206
(August 8, 20071
WARNER, J.
When this court last considered this case in Mumma v. Mumma, 780
So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we reviewed the trial court's order on
final accounting of the dissolution of a family corporation. We found no
error in the final accounting, but we reversed for the assessment of
interest on the award of damages to the estate of Robert Mumma, Sr.
against Robert Mumma; Jr. and the assessment of attorney's fees. In
discussing the interest issue, we explained in our opinion, "After
allocating the various debts pursuant to that court's findings, Robert, Jr.
owed High Spec $224,658.39, fifty percent of which belonged to appellees
as one of High Spec's two shareholders." Id. at 1003 (emphasis supplied).
We then reversed for calculation of interest on the damages.
Although our reversal was limited to the assessment of interest on the
amount of the damages as set forth in our opinion and the determination
of attorney's fees, on remand Robert, Jr. attempted to inject multiple
other issues in the case, all of which the trial court rejected, and we find
to be without merit. However, the estate managed to convince the court
that we had never determined how to calculate the interest. The trial
court ultimately recalculated the damage award to $639,887.67, and
then assessed interest on this amount.
Exhibit "A"
This recalculation was beyond the directions on remand. We had
already stated in our opinion the amount of the award as "$224,658.39,
fifty percent of which belonged to appellees as one of High Spec's two
shareholders." Had the appellees wished to challenge the calculation of
the award of damages, they should have done so in the prior appeal.
Having failed to do so, our remand instructed that the trial court should
calculate prejudgment interest upon the damage award from the time of
its liquidation in 1993. Thus, appellees would be entitled to interest on
fifty percent of $224,658.39 from 1993. The trial court had no authority
to recalculate the underlying damage award.
Reversed and remanded for the court to award interest in accordance
with the instructions in this opinion.
KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., CONCUR.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,
Martin County; Robert Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 89-503 CA.
Robert C. Buschel and Jenessa M. Stearns of Rothstein Rosenfeldt
Adler, and The Hodkin Kopelowitz Ostrow Firm P.A.
counsel after filing of brief), Eric J. Wiener, Harrisburg, PA and Ira
Hatch, Vero Beach, for appellants.
James L.S. Bowdish and Jennifer L. Williamson of Crary, Buchanan,
Bowdish, Bovie, Beres, Elder & Williamson Chartered, Stuart, for
appellees.
Not final until disposition of timely (fled motion for rehearing.
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Melissa A. Scholly, an authorized agent of Martson Law Offices, hereby certify that a copy
of the foregoing Plaintiffs-Appellees' Petition for Modification of Record was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, PA, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as
follows:
John J. Calkins, Esquire
William E. Copley, Esquire
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP
1301 K Street, NW
Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
MARTSON LAW OFFICES
By:"1 \
Melissa A. Scholly
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Date: August 16, 2007 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs-Appellees
C3
NO
MIN
WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) N006-2197 Civil
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) CIVIL ACTION - LAW
TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due BARBARA MCK MUMMA, LISA MUMMA
MORGAN, ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., Plaintiff (s)
From ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
(1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell
(2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession
of MELLON BANK, 215 SENATE AVENUE, WEST SHORE OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 100,
CAMP HILL, PA 17101-2325
GARNISHEE(S) as follows:
ESCROW ACCOUNT NO. 108443J4014, AND ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS HELD AT SAID BANK.
and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from
paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant
(s) or otherwise disposing thereof;
(3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession
of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a
garnishee and is enjoined as above stated.
Amount Due$1,615,390.91 L.L.$.50
Interest $210.374/DAY FROM 4/19/06
Atty's Comm %
Atty Paid $38.00
Plaintiff Paid
Date: DECEMBER 29, 2006
(Seal)
Due Prothy $1.00
Other Costs
Curtis R. Long, Prothonotary
1? ,44
By: 0 a Q-- ?.. 4-
V
Deputy
REQUESTING PARTY:
Name GEORGE B. FALLER, JR. ESQUIRE
Address: 10 EAST HIGH STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Attorney for: PLAINTIFF
Telephone: 717-243-3341
Supreme Court ID No. 49813
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states this
is returned ABANDONED, no action taken in six months.
ad`, .?
/ t
eriff s Costs: Advance Costs: 150.00
Sheriffs Costs 105.53
Docketing 18.00 44.67 '
Poundage 2.07
Advertising
Law Library .50
Prothonotary 1.00 Refunded to Atty on 09/12/07
Mileage 13.20
Misc.
Surcharge 40.00
Levy 20.00
Post Pone Sale
Certified Mail
Postage 1.56
Garnishee 9.00
9 j? Y/I y
TOTAL ?
105.53 g-- So Answers,
. Thomas Kline, Sheriff ?
J
By_0 I awuj-? &t?Jcl/
^o
OS :r 1 e b- NVr Laoz
.F.
y? ?
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
Supplemental Record
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
BARBARA MCK.MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-
EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED,
AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECASED, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A
DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION
vs.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA
CORPORATION
2006-2197 Civil Term
462 MDA 2007
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. a3Sr to dY7, , and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 09-J5'-2007 .
6wdja x
Curtis k Long, Prothonot
Regina K. Lebo, Deputy
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
Date
Signature & Title
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
county of Cumberland in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
462 MDA 2007
to No. 2006-2197 Civil Term, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF -B paarance DOCKET ENTRY
Barbara McK. Nhmma and Lisa
Mumma Morgan, as, Co-Executrixes of
the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and High Spec,
Inc., a dissolved Florida
Corporation
vs.
Robert M. Mmma II and High-Spec.,
Inc., a dissolved Florida Corporation
**Supplemental Record**
George B. Faller, Jr., Esq.
Mark A. Fink, Esq.
John J. Calkins, Esq.
**See Certified Copy of the Docket Entries**
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
Barbara McK.Mtmma and Lisa Mtmma
Moraan et. al.
Plaintiff, and HQbe3ft M- mim TT, and
High S=, Tnc.
Defendant , as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No. 06-2197 of
civil Term, A. D. 19 .
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
this Q.5'M day of September A. D.,4*2007,
&Ls'- gKS
Prothonotary
Edgar B. Bayley President Judge of the Ninth
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curtis R. Long , by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of OmnberlAnd in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature a re, and that the said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by a proper
v resi ent , e
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland ss:
I, Curtis R. Lone , Prothonotary bf the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable Wgar B- Razes
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this
day of September A. D. A3203-
RK S(::Z
Prothonotary
b
0
0
0
to
Za
c.
a
n
c.
i
n ff a
o ,.
• b ?
rZA
w 7a
o
Q
r
fi
N
? o
Co
o
I ?
I
PYS511 C:umoerlana county rrounonotary,s uzzice rage 1
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No. Filed. 4/19/2006
Case Type.....: EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
d Time.........: 4:06
Ju
ment..... . 1615390.91 Ekecution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.:
------------ C
C
t
--
- Disposed Date.
Hi 0/00/0000
ase
ommen
s --
-------- gher Crt 1.: 462 MDA 2007
Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
MCK MUMMA BARBARA PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MORGAN LISA MUMMA PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MUMMA ROBERT M ESTATE OF PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
HIGH-SPEC INC PLAINTIFF FALLER GEORGE B JR
MUMMA ROBERT M II DEFENDANT FINK MARK A
6880 S E HARBOR CIRCLE CALKINS JOHN J
STUART FL 34996
HIGH-SPEC INC DEFENDANT FINK MARK A
6880 S E HARBOR CIRCLE CALKINS JOHN J
STUART FL 34996
********************************************************************************
Judgment Index Amount Date Desc
MUMMA ROBERT M II 1,615,390.91 4/19/2006 EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
HIGH-SPEC INC 1,615,390.91 471972006 EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
* Date Entries
********************************************************************************
1-3? 4/19/2006 EXEMPLIFIED RECORD IN THE AMOUNT OFT$R$1 615 390.91 FROM THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR MARTIN COUNTY
FLORIDA
09_,59 5/26/2006 PETITION TO STRIKE FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY
EXECUTION - BY JUSTIN G WEBER ATTY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
k0- r/
.0.?. 5/31/2006 PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VERIFICATION - BY JUSTIN G WEBER ATTY
63- G f 6/02/2006 ANSWER TO PETITION TO STRIKE FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO STAY EXECUTION BY MICHAEL J COLLINS ESQ FOR PLFFS
-----------------------------------------
9 6/02/2006 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE- 06-02-06 - IN RE: HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. A RULE IS ISSUED ON THE RESPONDENTS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
PETITIONERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED;
2. RESPONDENTS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN 20
DAYS OF THIS DATE-
3. OF AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS NECESSARY TO RESOLVE FACTUAL
DISPUTES WE WILL SCHEDULE A HEARING AT THE REQUEST OF EITHER
PARTY•
4. fF NO EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS REQUESTED EITHER PARTY MAY LIST
THE MATTER FOR AUGUST COURT - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J 0 COPIES MAILED
06-05-06
--------------------------------------------------------------
10/26/2006 ATTYSFORPETITION TO STRIKE AND/OR OPEN JUDGMENT - BY ERIC J WIENER
DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
70 7/ 11/03/2006 ORDER - 11-03-06 - IN RE- ORDERED THAT:
1-RULE ISSUED UPON THk RESPONDENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED
2-RESPONDENT SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE PETITION WITHIN 20
DAYS OF SVC UPON THE RESPONDENT
3-IF ISSUES OF FACT ARE RAISED WE SHALL SCHEDULE A HEARING UPON
PETITION OF EITHER PARTY
4-IF NO ISSUES OF FACT ARE IN DISPUTE-EITHER PARTY MAY LIST THE
MATTER FOR ARGUMENT
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Ortice
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No. Filed.. ..
Case Type...... EXEMPLIFIED RECORD Time.
Judgment...., 1615390 91 Execution?Date
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date.
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
5-NOTICE OF THE ENTRY OF HTIS ORDER SHALL BE PROVIDED
PARTIES BY THE PETITIONER - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES
11-06-06
Page
4/19/2006
4:06
0/00/0000
0/0010000
462 MDA 2007
TO ALL
MAILED
11/20/2006
--
----- ------ ------------- ----- ---
------ ------- ------
OTION-FOR-PROTECTIVE-ORDER-- -BY-GEORGE-B-FALLER-JR-ATTY - - - -
RF
FO
LFF
P
Sg 11/27/2006 ORDER - 11-27-06 - IN RE: PLFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IS
GRANTED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 11-27-06
-
ja3-/3,0 11/28/2006 ----------------------------- ---------- ------- ---- --------
YF - -
STRIKE AND/OR-OPEN-JUDGMENT -
W
R
D
T
E
I
MICHAEL
J
COLL
NS
ATTY
FOR
PLFFS
B
'
13/ 12/12/2006 ---------------
--------------------------=---------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFTS PETITION TO STRIKE
FOREIGN JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO STAY EXECUTION - BY
MICHAEL J COLLINS ATTY FOR PLFFS
i3a-113 12/29/2006 -----------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTION ISSUED -
IT OF
FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION
$2A
2
WR
50
PD
?O
DUE
L
1311-IV 1/10/2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION - BY ERIC J WIENER ATTY
FOR DEFTS
yl/ 1/11/2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret T
Type.: Garnishee
Litigant.: MUMMA ROBERT M II
Garnishee: MELLON BANK 214 SENATE AVE
Addres :
Ct /St%Zp: CAMP HILL, PA 17011
Sh /Dpty.: RONALD E. HOOVER
Hnd To: AARON BRAGUNIER (SE VI E REP)
Co ies
3 D
t
Ti
0
...:
a
e
me:
1 2007 0012:20
C
st
)
o
s....: $0.00 Pd By: 01
11 007
1/11/2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S FILE RETURNED FILED.
Case Type: WRIT OF EXECUTION Ret Type.: Garnishee
Litigant.: HIGH-SPEC INC
Garnishee: MELLON BANK 214 SENATE AVE
Add ess..:
CtyZSt/Zp: CAMP HILL, PA 17011
p y.: RONALD E. HOOVER
Hnd To: AARON BRAGUNIER (SE VIQE REP)
Copies...: 3 Date/Time: 0 /1 2007 0012:20
Costs....: $0.00 Pd By: 0111/ 007
1/18/2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------
RULE TO SHOW CAUSE - 01-18-07 - RULE; ENTERED ON PLFFS TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY RELEIF REQUESTED IN FOREGOING MOTION SHOULD NOT BE
GRANTED ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE:
1-DEFTS SHALL FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION BY
01-22-07 THE DATE PREVIOUSLY SET FOR FILING OF DEFTS' BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF DEFTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN THE CASE DOCKETED
AT 2004-6183
2-PLFFS SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO THE DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY
AND A SUPPORTING BRIEF BY 02-04-07 THE DATE PREVIOUSLY SET FOR
FILING OF PLFFS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION INT HE CASE DOCKETED AT 2004-6183
3-A HEARING ON DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY IS SCHEDULED BEFORE
JUDGE GUIDO 02-16-07 AT 1:30 PM
4-ORAL ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION IN
THE CASE DOCKETED AT 04-6183 SHALL BE HELD ON 02-16-07 -
IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY AND
BRIEFS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE
ESTABLISHED IN THIS COURT'S 01-02-07 ORDER
5-DEFTS SHALL FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONS TO
STRIKE BY 01-22-07 AND PLFFS SHALL FILE A ABRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
THOSE PEITIONS BY 02-04-07
6-ORAL ARGUMENT REGARDING THE PETITIONS TO STRIKE SHALL BE
HELD ON 02-16-07
r10011 L,U1111jC1-Ld11U l,VU11Ly rpiulluilVl.dty - S V1111:C YdyC .3
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No... Filed. 4/19/2006
Case Type...... EXEMPLIFIED RECORD Time. 4.06
Judgment..... : 1615390.91 EXecution?Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Dispos(?d Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.: 462 MDA 2007
Higher Crt 2.:
7-EXECUTION ON THE JUDGMENT ENTERED HEREIN IS HEREY STAYED
PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF COURT - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES
MAILED 01-18-07
----------------- ---------------------------
/j/9' /5-0 1/29/2007 E TO ENTER APPEARANCE - BY DANIEL S BZRNHEIM III ATTY FOR
GARNISH EE- MELLON BANK
GARNISH
------------------------------------------------------
/S/-/73 2/02/2007 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFTS' MOTION FOR STAY OF-EXECUTION - BY ------
GEORGE B FALLER JR ATTY FOR PLFFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
/7q-/7S 2/15/2007 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - NOTE OF THE ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
OF MARK A FINK AND JOHN J CALKINS OF SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL
LLP ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS ROBERT M MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC
INC IN THE ABOVE TITLED ACTION MARK A FINK AND JOHN J CALKINS ESQ
FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1'7(0 2/22/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 02-16-07 - IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M MUMMA II
TO STRIKE/OPEN JUDGMENT IS DENIED - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES
MAILED 02-22-07
------------------------------------------------------------
3/16/2007 PLFFCE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT - BY JOHN J CALKINS ATTY FOR
-----------------------------------
--------------------------------
/$p % 3/21/2007 SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO ## 462 MDA 2007
3/22/2007 ORDER - 03-14-07 - IN RE: DEFT ROBERT M MUMMAII' MOTION FOR SATY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IS DENIED AND STAY PREVIOUSLY ENTERED ON 01-18-07 IS HEREBY LIFTED
- BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 03-22-07
---------------------
/ 2/23/2007 ORDER OF COURT - 03-20-07 - IN RE: DEFTS' COUNSEL IS DIRECTED TO
FILE A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL WITHIN
14 DAYS OF TODAY'S DATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 1925B - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J.- COPIES MAILED 03-23-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------
191-a-3D 3/23/2007 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS - 02-16-07
,23i-.23q 3/26/2007 DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS' CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF
ON APPEAL - BY JOHN J CALKINS ATTY FOR DEFTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
.15.3---?37 5/22/2007 OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - 05-18-07 - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J -
COPIES MAILED 05-22-07
-------------------------------------------------------------------
6/05/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO GEORGE B FALLER JR ESQ AND JOHN
J CALKINS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
a,?f-aNr 9/20/2007 ORDER - UPON CONSIDERTAION OF THE PETITION OF APPELLEES FOR
MODIFICATION OF THE RECORD THE PETITION IS GRANTED AS-FOLLOWS
THE TRIAL COURT IS DIRECTED TO CORRECT THE RECORD TO INCLUDE
THE DOCUMENT DESCRIBED IN APPELLEE'S MOTION THE TRIAL COURT IS
FURTHER DIRECTED TO WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS CERTIFY AND
TRANSMIT THAT DOCUMENT AS A SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD TO BE FILED IN
THIS COURT SEE PA R A P 1926
THE PROTHONOTARY OF THIS COURT SHALL PROVIDE THE TRIAL COURT
WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE PETITION AND
SHALL NOTIFY THE PARTIES WHEN THE SUPPLEMENTAL CERTIFIED RECORD IS
FILED PER CURIAM
------------------------------------------------------------
o?a`ayt? 9/20/2007 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES' PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF THE RECORD BY
GEORGE B FALLER JR ESQ
07q-7 9/24/2007 SHERIFF'S RETURN - WRIT IS RETURNED ABANDONED NO ACTION TAKEN IN
SIX MONTHS SHERIFF PAID $1.00 COUNTY & $0.50 LL
SHERIFF'S COSTS $105.53 PD ATTY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
9/25/2007 NOTICE OF DOCKET ENTRIES MAILED TO GEORGE B FALLER JR ESQ
JOHN J CALKINS ESQ AND WILLIAM E COPLEY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
9/25/2007 SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD MAILED TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Civil Case Print
2006-02197 MUMMA BARBARA MCK ET AL (vs) MUMMA ROBERT M ET AL
Reference No... Filed 4/19/206
Case Type.....: EXEMPLIFIED RECORD
390
91 ..
Execution Date
0/00/0000
Judgment .... :
Judge Assigned: .
1615
GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date.
C
1
i 0/00/0000
462 MD 2007
------------ Cas e Comments ------------ - glier
rt
..
H
Higher Crt 2.:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
***************** *********************** ************ ****************************
* Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal P*ymts/Ad!
*** ***
* End Bal
****************************
***************** *************** ******* * *
*
EX RECORD/SAT 10.00 10.00 .00
SATISFACTION 5.00 5.00 .00
AUTOMATION FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
WRIT OF EXEC
WRIT TAX/EXEC 15.00
.50 15.00
.50 .00
.00
APPEAL HIGH CT 48.00 48.00 .00
CERTIFY 1ST PG 5.00 5.00 .00
CERTIFY 2ND PG 1.00 1.00 .00
COPIES 2.50 2.50 .00
SHFF RETURN FEE 1.00 1.00 .00
LAW LIB FEE .50
- .50
--------- -- .00
----------
------------
--
93.50 93.50 .00
* End of C ase Information
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand
and the seal of said Court at Carlisle, Pa.
..,
This ....qJ? ...... day of .(-71; .....
,?,Q., .... .. ..
Prothonota
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF 0
CUMBERLAND COU
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL T]
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL PURSUANT TO
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1)
AND NOW, the law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP and Mark A. Fink, and
John J. Calkins (hereinafter collectively "Sonnenschein") hereby petition this Court pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1) for leave to withdraw as counsel
for Defendants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc., (hereinafter collectively
"Defendants") in the above-captioned action, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. In February 2007, Robert M. Mumma II ("Mr. Mumma") retained Sonnenschein
to serve as legal counsel for Defendants in this action.
2. Mr. Mumma maintains residences at:
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008, and
6880 S.E. Harbor Circle
Stuart, FL 34996-1968
3. Mr. Mumma's business address is:
840 Market Street
Suite 164
Lemoyne, PA 17043
4. Recent differences between Mr. Mumma and Sonnenschein have placed
Sonnenschein in conflict with Mr. Mumma and have made it impossible for Sonnenschein to
continue as counsel for Defendants. As such, professional considerations require termination of
the representation.
5. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.16(a)(1), a lawyer is
required to withdraw if the representation will result in a violation of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
6. Pursuant to Cumberland County Rules of Civil Procedure 208.3(a) Sonnenschein
certifies that the full text of the Petition To Withdraw As Counsel Pursuant To Pennsylvania
Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1) and the Proposed Order has been disclosed to
Mr. Mumma, and to counsel for Plaintiffs by electronic communication. Counsel for Plaintiffs
concur with both the Petition and Proposed Order. Mr. Mumma concurs with the Petition and
Proposed Order.
7. The Honorable Edward E. Guido has ruled on all previous matters in No. 06-
2197.
WHEREFORE, Sonnenschein respectfully requests that this Court grant leave to
withdraw from the representation of Defendants in this matter.
Dated: Octoberia , 2007
-2-
Respectfully submitted,
SONNENSC E NATH OSENTHAL LLP
By:
Mark A. Fink (Pa. o. 80898)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1089
(212) 768-6700
(212) 768-6800 (facsimile)
John J. Calkins (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendants
-3-
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge or information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
By:
Date: ?a aoo
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mark A. Fink, do hereby certify that on October/.,?, 2007, the foregoing Petition To
Withdraw As Counsel was served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert M. Mumma II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Robert M. Mumma II
6880 S.E. Harbor Circle
Stuart, FL 34996-1968
High-Spec, Inc.
c/o Robert M. Mumma II
840 Market Street
Suite 164
Lemoyne, PA 17043
-5-
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROPOSED ORDER
AND NOW, this day of , 2007, upon consideration of
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP's Petition To Withdraw As Counsel Pursuant
to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1), and for good cause shown,
said petition is hereby granted.
BY THE COURT,
Honorable Edward Guido
n
c A n
?,
CD
n_- -11
--
,k
.
`: i CD
-E
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
OCT 162007&*
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROPOSED ORDER
AND NOW, this ? 0fday of , 2007, upon consideration of
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSE LLP's Petition To Withdraw As ounsel Pmt
-- - -?e~•PT - - - - --- - ,
Honorable Edward Guido
funr
60 -? Hd CZ 100 LOU
Av3 3Hl J0
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
c
--------------------------------------------
1013-10/99 10/1/99
n G o
c.
TJ
.) c ;
Z -n
U
7r o
'
i... "Y'
S° d
j .,
? w
e
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District
Prothonotary
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary November 16, 2007
RE: Mumma, II, R. v. The Estate of R. Mumma
No. 461 MDA 2007 A- -0&J, InDA WO7
Trial Court Docket Number: 04-6183
Dear:
100 Pine Street. Suite 400
Harrisburg. PA 17101
717-772-1294
www. superior. court.state.pa.us
Enclosed please find a certified copy of an order dated November 16, 2007 entered in
the above-captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
Ja es D. McCullough, Psq.
Deputy Prothonotary
WJT
cc: William Edgar Copley, Esq.
Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Judge
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
o
..c RIM
T?
? m
y
C j
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.
V.
The Estate of
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.
ORDER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
(C.P. Cumberland County
No. 04-6183)
No. 461 MDA 2007
Filed: November I ID 2007
Upon consideration of the petition of Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal, LLP and John J. Calkins and William E. Copley for leave to
withdraw as counsel for appellants, Robert M. Mumma, II and High-
Spec, Inc., the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Appellants shall notify this Court, within ten (10) days of the
date this order is filed, as to their intention regarding retaining new
counsel. See Walacavage v. Excel/ 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa.
Super. 1984) (a corporation may appear and be represented in
Pennsylvania courts only by an attorney admitted to practice;
corporation may not appear in court and be represented by a
corporate officer or shareholder who is not an attorney).
Per Curiam
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Attest: N 16 2007
Deputy thonotary
Superior Court of PA - Middle District
p
....?
?' ? r
?
v' :?: `? c? c?,
?=
?
?
?
=?_ -;i
;ern
'
-
?G
? ? ?
: -
Barbara McK. Mumma, et al.
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.
ORDER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
(C.P. Cumberland County
No. 06-2197)
No. 462 MDA 2007
Filed: November Ili , 2007
Upon consideration of the petition of Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal, LLP and John J. Calkins and William E. Copley for leave to
withdraw as counsel for appellants, Robert M. Mumma, II and High-
Spec, Inc., the motion Is hereby GRANTED.
Appellants shall notify this Court, within ten (10) days of the
date this order is filed, as to their intention regarding retaining new
counsel. See Walacavage v. Excel/ 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa.
Super. 1984) (a corporation may appear and be represented in
Pennsylvania courts only by an attorney admitted to practice;
corporation may not appear in court and be represented by a
corporate officer or shareholder who is not an attorney).
Per Curiam ER0 RD
Attest'. CNBY l 0 w
cL
Deputy Prothonotary
Superior Court of PA - Middle District
No.: 461 MDA 2007
Carbon Copy Recipient List
Addressed To: John Joseph Calkins, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
1301 K Street, N.W.
Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Carbon Copied: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
McCormick Road
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William Edgar Copley, Esq.
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP
1301 K Street, NW
Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Sq
Carlisle, PA 17013
1013 -10/99 10/1/99
c
L-- ?>
n
's> L ? r
ti
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
AND NOW, the law firm of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, and Mark A. Fink and
John J. Calkins (hereinafter collectively "Sonnenschein") hereby petition this Court for leave to
withdraw as counsel for Defendants Robert M. Mumma II and High-Spec, Inc., (hereinafter
collectively "Defendants") in the above-captioned action, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. In or about October 15, 2007 Sonnenschein filed a Petition to Withdraw As
Counsel Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1012(c) and 1012(d)(1).
2. On October 23, 2007, this Court ordered that "it appearing that the matter is on
appeal, the petition should be directed to the appellate court."
3. On October 19, 2007, Sonnenschein filed a petition to withdraw as counsel with
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
4. On November 16, 2007, the Superior Court granted Sonnenschein's petition to
withdraw.
5. Copies of the October 23, 2007 Order and November 16, 2007 Order are
attached.
WHEREFORE, Sonnenschein respectfully requests that this Court grant leave to
withdraw from the representation of Defendants in this matter.
Dated: December 6, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
SONNEKWUM N"ff & ROSENTHAL LLP
By:
John/J. Ca*fns (Pa. I.D. No. 70668)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1301 K Street N.W., Suite 600, East Tower
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 408-6400
(202) 408-6399 (facsimile)
Mark A. Fink (Pa. I.D. No. 80898)
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP
1221 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1089
(212) 768-6700
(212) 768-6800 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Defendants
-2-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Teisha C. Johnson, do hereby certify that on December 6, 2007, the foregoing Petition
To Withdraw As Counsel was served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the following:
No V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
Martson Law Offices
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert M. Mumma II
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Robert M. Mumma II
6880 S.E. Harbor Circle
Stuart, FL 34996-1968
High-Spec, Inc.
c/o Robert M. Mumma II
840 Market Street
Suite 164
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Teisha C. Johnson
-3-
, I I
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUIVIlVIA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
OCT 162007
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
v.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROPOSED ORDER
AND NOW, this !? day of 0 , 2007, upon consideration of
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP's Petition To Withdraw As ounsel Perm
09 enis ftmety graurm.
BY COURT,
Honorable Edward Guido
?a'0
?o
Barbara McK. Mumma, et al.
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
(C.P. Cumberland County
No. 06-2197)
No. 462 MDA 2007
Filed: November 110 , 2007
Upon consideration of the petition of Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal, LLP and John J. Calkins and William E. Copley for leave to
withdraw as counsel for appellants, Robert M. Mumma, II and High-
Spec, Inc., the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Appellants shall notify this Court, within ten (10) days of the
date this order Is filed, as to their intention regarding retaining new
counsel. See Walacavage v, Excell 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa.
Super. 1984) (a corporation may appear and be represented In
Pennsylvania courts only by an attorney admitted to practice;
corporation may not appear in court and be represented by a
corporate officer or shareholder who is not an attorney).
Per Curiam
TRUE NUV WWORD
Attest: ry
Deputy Fwdmotwy
Superior Court of PA - Middle District
CO
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes
of the Estate of ROBERT M. MUMMA,
Deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Plaintiffs
DEC 10 2007 M ?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 06-2197 CIVIL TERM
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II and
HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this I I )?' day of , 2007, upon consideration of
SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL LLP's Petition To Withdraw As Counsel, and for
good cause shown, said petition is hereby granted.
Honorable Edward Guido
n
9 :g V Z 1 3"30 LOCI
=Irlij i-C =111
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
1013-10/99 10/1/99
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq.
Prothonotary
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District
May 7, 2008
RE: Mumma, B., et al v. Mumma, R., II, et al
No. 462 MDA 2007
Trial Court Docket Number: 06-2197
Dear :
100 Pine Street. Suite 400
Harrisburg. PA 17101
717-772-1294
www.superior.court.state.pa.us
Enclosed please find a certified copy of an order dated May 7, 2008 entered in the
above-captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
e
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
AAS
cc: George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Judge
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Barbara McK. Mumma, et al.
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II, et al.
ORDER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
(C.P. Cumberland County
No. 06-2197)
No. 462 MDA 2007
Filed: May 1 , 2007
As appellants have notified this Court, by Statement filed
November 26, 2007, of their intention to retain new counsel, and as no
counsel has since entered an appearance in this Court, the following is
ORDERED:
The above-captioned appeal shall proceed as to individual
appellant Robert M. Mumma, II, who apparently now intends to
proceed pro se. The appeal is DISMISSED as to appellant High-Spec,
Inc. See Walacavage v. Excell 2000, Inc., 480 A.2d 281 (Pa.
Super. 1984) (a corporation may appear and be represented in
Pennsylvania courts only by an attorney admitted to practice;
corporation may not appear in court and be represented by a
corporate officer or shareholder who is not an attorney).
Per Curiam
TRUE COPY FROM RBCORD
Attest: MAY 0 7 2008
Deputy iPtothonotary
superior Court of PA _ Middle Diarist
No.: 462 MDA 2007
Carbon Copy Recipient List
Addressed To: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
McCormick Road
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Carbon Copied: Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Sq
Carlisle, PA 17013
1013 -10/99 10/1/99
-TI
-U S :t +
.?.
' F
-
.
t n
-o
v
r +L.J
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
c
---------------------------------------------
1013-10/99 10/1/99
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Karen Reid Bramblett, Esq. Middle District
Prothonotary
James D. McCullough, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
June 5, 2008
RE: Mumma, B., et al v. Mumma, R., 11, et al
No. 462 MDA 2007
Trial Court Docket Number: 06-2197
Dear :
100 Pine Street. Suite 400
Harrisbure. PA 17101
717-772-1294
www. superior. court. state. pa. us
Enclosed please find a certified copy of an order dated June 4, 2008 entered in the
above-captioned matter.
Very truly yours,
A
James D. McCulloug , Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
WJT
cc: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Judge
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
J. A19011/08
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes of
the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust Under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased,
and High-Spec Inc., a Florida
Corporation,
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
Appellants
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 462 MDA 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4m of June, 2008, upon consideration of Appellant
High-Spec, Inc.'s Petition to Reinstate Appeal, said Petition is hereby
GRANTED.
Per Curiam
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Attest: JUN 0 5 2000
Deputy thonotwy
Superior Court of PA -Middle District
No.: 462 MDA 2007
Carbon Copy Recipient List
Addressed To: James Gahring Gault, Esq.
840 Market Street
Suite 162
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Carbon Copied: Mr. Robert M. Mumma, II
McCormick Road
Box 58
Bowmansdale, PA 17008
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
George Byron Faller, Jr., Esq.
Martson Deardorff Williams Otto Gilroy & Faller
10 E High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Sq
Carlisle, PA 17013
1013 -10/99 10/1/99
0 C=
TT! rT.,
> 4
Cil
c - ~
w
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Irene A Bizzoso, Esq. Middle District P.O. Box 624
Deputy Prothonotary Har isbum PA 17108
Elizabeth E. Zisk July 2, 2009 717-787-6181
Chief Clerk
www.aopc.org
Mr. Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa Mumma Morgan, as Co-Executrixes of the Estate of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased and as Co-Trustees of the Residuary Trust under the
Last Will of Robert M. Mumma, deceased and High-Spec, Inc., a Florida Corporation,
Respondents
V.
Robert M. Mumma, II and High-Spec, Inc., Petitioners
Superior Docket Number - 462 MDA 2007
Trial Court/Agency Dkt. Number: 06-2197
No. 88 MAL 2009
Appeal Docket No.:
Date Petition for Allowance of Appeal Filed: February 9, 2009
Disposition: Order Denying Petition for Allowance of Appeal
Date: July 2, 2009
Rea rg ument/Reconsideration Disposition:
Reargument/Reconsideration
Disposition Date:
/hms
F3 : i
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-EXECUTORS
OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, DECEASED, AND AS CO-
TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY
TRUST UNDER THE LAST WILL OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND
HIGH-SPEC, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION,
Respondents
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC.,
Petitioners
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC.,
Petitioners
No. 88 MAL 2009
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
The Order of the Superior Court
: No. 89 MAL 2009
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
The Order of the Superior Court
V.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
THE EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE
OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA M.
MORGAN AND BARBARA MCK.
MUMMA, THE RESIDUARY TRUST
UNDER THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, THE TRUSTEES OF THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA M.
MORGAN AND BARBARA MCK.
MUMMA,
Respondents
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2009, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are
hereby DENIED.
TRUE & CORRECT COPY
ATTEST: July 2, 2009
Elizabeth E. Zisk, Cf"iief Clerk
•6`'w.
Karcn Rod Bramblctt, F<y.
Prothonotart
Milan K_'Arkobrad, Lzsc{.
Dcpmty Prothonotarc
Middle District
CERTIFICATE OF REMITTAUREMAND OF RECORD
TO: Mr. Long
Prothonotary
RE: Mumma, B., et al v. Mumma, R., II, et al
462 MDA 2007
Intermediate Court Docket No:
Trial Court: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
I00 Pinc Strcct, Suite 400
Harrisburg, PA I7101
(717) 772-1294
www.sulxrior.<'ourt.stataha.u:;
Trial Court Docket No: 06-2197
Annexed hereto pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure 2571 and 2572 is
the entire record for the above matter.
Original Record contents:
Item
Filed Date Description
Part June 6, 2007 1
Supplemental Part September 26, 2007 1
Remand/Remittal Date: 07/28/2009
ORIGINAL RECIPIENT ONLY - Please acknowledge receipt by signing, dating, and
returning the enclosed copy of this certificate to our office. Copy recipients (noted below) need
not acknowledge receipt.
Respectfully,
cj?
Milan K. Mrkobrad, Esq.
Deputy Prothonotary
/alv
Enclosure
cc: James Gahring Gault, Esq.
The Honorable Edward Guido, Judge
Mr. Robert M. Mumma II
Jennifer Leigh Spears, Esq.
Mumma, B., et al v. Mumma, R., II, et al July 28, 2009
462 MDA 2007
Letter to: Mr. Curtis R. Long
Acknowledgement of Certificate of Remittal/Remand of Record (to be returned):
Signature
Date
Printed Name
I
1
A19010/08
). A19011J08
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC,,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA,
V.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
THE EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA M. MORGAN
AND BARBARA MCK. MUMMA, THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE WILL
OF ROBER'T' M. MUMMA, AND THE
TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST
UNDER THE WILL OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, LISA M. MORGAN AND
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA
APPEAL OF: ROBERT M. MUMMA, II
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-
EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED AND
AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY
TRUST UNDER THE LAST WILL OF
ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED AND
HIGH-SPEC, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION
No. 461 MDA 2007
No. 462 MDA 2007
V.
ROBERT M, MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC.,
APPELLANT
ORDER OF COURT
The Court hereby DENIES the applications filed November 14, 2008 at
No. 461 MDA 2007, requesting reargument or reconsideration of the decision
dated October 31, 2008.
Z
The Court hereby DENIES the applications filed November 13, 2008 at
No. 462 MDA 2007, requesting reargument or reconsideration of the decision
dated October 30, 2008.
PER CURIAM
DATE: January 8, 2009
TRUE COPY FROM RECORD
Attest: FAR 2 8 2009
Deputy Prothonotary
Superior Court of PA - Middle District
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT
BARBARA MCK. MUMMA AND LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-EXECUTORS
OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, DECEASED, AND AS CO-
TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY
TRUST UNDER THE LAST WILL OF
ROBERT PSI. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND
HIGH-SPEC, INC., A FLORIDA
CORPORATION,
Respondents
No. 88 MAL 2009
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
The Order of the Superior Court
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC.,
Petitioners
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II AND HIGH-
SPEC, INC.,
Petitioners
No. 89 MAL 2009
Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
The Order of the Superior Court
V.
THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA,
THE EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE
OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA M.
MORGAN AND BARBARA MCK.
MUMMA, THE RESIDUARY TRUST
UNDER THE LAST WILL OF ROBERT M.
MUMMA, THE TRUSTEES OF THE
RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, LISA M.
MORGAN AND BARBARA MCK.
MUMMA,
Respondents
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 2nd day of July, 2009, the Petitions for Allowance of Appeal are
hereby DENIED.
TRUE & CORRECT COPY
ATTEST: July 2, 2009
Elizabetfi E. Zisk, C ief Clerk
3. A19011/08
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
BARBARA McK. MUMMA and LISA
MUMMA MORGAN, as Co-Executrixes of
the Estate of Robert M. Mumma,
deceased, and as Co-Trustees of the
Residuary Trust Under the Last Will of
Robert M. Mumma, deceased,
and HIGH-SPEC, INC., a Florida
Corporation,
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ROBERT M. MUMMA, II, and
HIGH-SPEC, INC.,
Appellants
: No. 462 MDA 2007
Appeal from the Order entered on February 16, 2007
in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil Division, No. 06-2197
BEFORE: STEVENS, MUSMANNO and TAMILIA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM: FILED: October 30, 2008
Robert M. Mumma, II ("Mumma II"), and High-Spec, Inc. ("High-
Spec") (collectively, "Appellants"), appeal from the trial court's Order
denying Appellants' Motion to open/strike the judgment entered against it
and in favor of Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa Mumma Morgan, in their
capacities as the executrixes of the Estate of Robert M. Mumma (the
deceased, hereinafter referred to as "Mumma I"), and as trustees of the
residuary trust under the Will of Mumma I (collectively, `the Estate"), The
judgment, rendered by a Florida court and transferred to Pennsylvania, was
J. A19011/08
entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County at No. 06-
2197. We affirm
In 1985, Mumma I and Mumma II formed High-Spec, a Florida
corporation. High-Spec was a closely held corporation wherein Mumma I
and Mumma II each owned 50% of its stock. Upon Mumma I's death, the
Estate filed a Complaint against Mumma II asserting, inter alia, that Mumma
II improperly had conveyed real property owned by High-Spec to himself for
no consideration. In 1993, the Florida trial court entered a partial final
judgment against Mumma II for $450,000, plus pre-judgment interest from
the date of the transaction. The Florida court further dissolved the
corporation, allocated High-Spec's assets and liabilities among various
parties and ordered that an accounting of the corporation be prepared.
Soon thereafter, the trial court suspended the final judgment and the
accrual of interest on that judgment pending the accounting, which was to
occur within sixty days. The trial court also reallocated the debts and
liabilities of High-Spec. More than four years later, during which time no
final accounting occurred, a successor judge sua sponte ordered the case
"closed." On appeal, the Florida appellate court reversed the Florida tria
court's order and remanded the matter to the trial court to oversee a final
accounting and the winding up of High-Spec. Mumma v. Mumma, 734 So.
2d 571, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). On remand, Mumma II's counsel raised,
for the first time, the existence of the Share Restrictive Agreement
- 2-
3. A19011/08
("Agreement") at issue in the instant proceedings. The trial judge refused to
consider the effect of the Agreement because Mumma II had not raised it
during the 1993 trial.
On March 15, 2000, the Florida trial court entered a final judgment
that basically adopted its 1993 findings and judgment. The Florida trial
court madE? a final accounting of the corporation, denied the imposition of
interest from the 1993 judgment, and denied the Estate's claim for
attorney's fees. Once again, the parties appealed the Florida trial court's
order. On appeal, the Florida appellate court found no error in the final
accounting,, but reversed and remanded for the assessment of interest on
the award of damages to the Estate of Mumma I against Mumma II, and the
assessment of counsel fees. The Florida appellate court further modified the
portion of the trial court's order that had suspended interest after the 1993
judgment. Mumma v. Mumma, 780 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Upon remand, Mumma II filed a motion to dismiss or for a new trial.
Mumma II asserted, as newly discovered evidence, the existence of the
Agreement. The trial court denied the motion and both parties appealed.
On appeal, Mumma II failed to raise the existence of the Agreement. The
Florida appellate court determined that the trial court had erred in its
calculation of interest and therefore, it again remanded the matter to the
trial court for a re-calculation of interest. Mumma v. Mumma, 966 So. 2d
514, 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
- 3 -
J. A19011/08
On April 19, 2006, the Estate filed a Praecipe to transfer the Florida
judgment to Pennsylvania. The Praecipe attached the Amended Final
Judgment Following Appellate Review, which was entered by the Florida trial
court on February 17, 2006. On October 26, 2006, Appellants filed a
Petition to strike/open the foreign judgment or, in the alternative, to stay
execution pending a decision in Mumma II v. Estate of Mumma, No. 04-
6183. The Estate filed an Answer. In an Order dated February 16, 2007,
the trial court denied Appellants' Petition to strike/open the judgment.
Thereafter, Appellants filed the instant appeal.
Appellants present the following claims for our review:
1. Whether the [trial court] erred by denying
[Appellants'] [P]etition to open a Florida judgment so that
a hearing could be held to determine, for the first time,
whether the Florida court had subject matter jurisdiction
to enter that judgment?
2. Whether the [trial court] erred by denying
[Appellants'] Petition to Strike the Florida Judgment
because under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711[,] a Florida court could
not exercise jurisdiction to determine the ownership of
stock registered in the name of [Mumma I], a
Pennsylvania domiciliary, at the time of his death?
Brief for Appellants at 4.
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 311(a)(1) provides that
"[a]n appeal may be taken as of right ... [from] ... [a]n order refusing to
open, vacate or strike off a judgment." Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(1). Accordingly,
the appeal is properly before this Court for disposition.
-4-
J. A19011/08
In their first claim of error, Appellants assert that the trial court erred
by denying their Petition to open the Florida judgment. Brief for Appellants
at 20. Appellants claim that they have "alleged facts, in a verified petition,
that if proven would demonstrate that the Florida Court lacked jurisdiction
because the Estate lacked standing." Id. at 24. Appellants base their
argument upon the Agreement, which, they assert, required the Estate to
sell Mumma Is shares of High-Spec back to the company or to Mumma II.
Id. at 25.
A foreign judgment entered without jurisdiction is a nullity and
therefore void. Commonwealth Capital Funding, Inc. v. Franklin
Square Hosp., 620 A.2d 1154, 1156 (Pa. Super. 1993). Such a judgment
cannot be "opened" because to do so would be to permit the trial court to
proceed further in an action where jurisdiction had not been obtained. Id.
Accordingly, Appellants' claim that the Florida court lacked jurisdiction to
enter the underlying judgment provides no basis upon which to open the
judgment. Accordingly, Appellants are not entitled to relief on this claim.
In their second claim of error, Appellants contend that the trial court
erred by denying their Petition to strike the foreign judgment. Appellants
assert that under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 711, a Florida court could not exercise
jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the stock registered to Mumma I
at the time! of his death. Brief for Appellants at 38. According to Appellants,
section 711 confers exclusive jurisdiction over certain estate-related
- 5 -
J. A19011/08
matters, including questions regarding the ownership of Mumma Is stock at
the time of: his death, to the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court. Id. at 38-39.
Appellants assert that because the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court had
exclusive jurisdiction, the Florida court lacked jurisdiction to enter a
judgment regarding that stock against Mumma II. Id.
This Court has set forth the applicable standard of review as follows:
Our standard of review from the denial of a petition to
strike a judgment is limited to whether the trial court
manifestly abused its discretion or committed an error of
law. Crum v. F.L. Shaffer Co., 693 A.2d 984 (Pa.
Super. 1997). The full faith and credit clause of the
United States Constitution requires state courts to
recognize and enforce the judgments of sister states.
U.S. Const. Art. 4, § 1. "In order for our courts to
recognize [a] judgment as valid and enforceable, the
sister state must have had proper jurisdiction over the
defendant and afforded him or her due process of law,"
Gersenson v. PA Life and Health Ins. Guar. Assn,
11999 PA Super 69, 729 A.2d 1191, 1195 (Pa. Super.
1.999), appeal denied, 562 Pa. 671, 753 A.2d 818 (2000)
(quoting Commonwealth Capital Funding, Inc. v.
Franklin Square Hospital, 423 Pa. Super. 149, 620
A.2d 11541 1156 (Pa. Super. 1993)).
Southern Medical Supply Co. v. Myers, 804 A.2d 1252, 1256 (Pa. Super.
2002). The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution
does not require recognition of a judgment of a sister state that was
rendered without proper jurisdiction
U.S. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 1;
Gersenson, 729 A.2d at 1195.
Appellants claim that the Florida court did not possess jurisdiction to
resolve the dispute over the shares of High-Spec owned by Mumma I. In its
-6-
I A19011/08
Opinion, the trial court addressed Appellants' claim and stated, in relevant
part, as follows:
[Appellants] contend[] that the exclusive jurisdiction to
determine the ownership of [Mumma I's] stock in [High-
Spec] is vested in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County[,] Pennsylvania. Therefore, the
Florida Court[] had no jurisdiction to enter final judgment
in the case before it. [Appellants'] position was based
upon language in several cases decided by the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. For example, "if stock is
registered in a decedent's name, the Orphans' Court is
given exclusive jurisdiction to determine the title to such
stock." In re: Estate of Donsavage, 420 Pa. 587, 597,
218 A.2d 112, 117 (1966). However, the cases relied
upon by [Appellants] are based upon Section 711 of the
Pennsylvania Probate, Estates and Fiduciary Code (20
Pa.C.S.A. § 711(17)).
The statute and cases relied upon by [Appellants]
merely provide that if a court of this Commonwealth is
called upon to determine title to the personal property of
a decedent, it shall be done exclusively by the Orphans'
Court division of the Court of Common Pleas with
jurisdiction over the matter. Nothing in the statute, or
the cases decided under it, would operate to nullify the
jurisdiction of the Florida Court in this case.
Trial Court: Opinion, 5/18/07, at 2.-3. We agree with and adopt the trial
court's reasoning. Because Appellants' challenge to the jurisdiction of the
Florida court lacks merit, we affirm the Order of the trial court.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered:
Tamilia, J., concurs in the result
e?uty Prothonotary
Date: October 30, 2008
- 7 -
i
i •
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
BARBARA McK.MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-
EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED,
AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A
DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION
VS.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA
• CORPORATION
2006-2197 Civil Tenn
462 NIDA 2007
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.l to 237, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is Ofa~ .
mortis R. Long, ]
Regina K. Lebo,
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
RECORD FILED IN SUPERIOR COURT
Date Signature & Title JUN 0 6 2007
MIDDLE
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
• PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
Supplemental Record
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
The undersigned, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that annexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P. 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and tl.e docket entries ir. the follosdirg matter:
BARBARA McK.MUMMA AND LISA MUMMA MORGAN, AS CO-
EXECUTRIXES OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECEASED,
AND AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE RESIDUARY TRUST UNDER THE LAST
WILL OF ROBERT M. MUMMA, DECASED, AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A
DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION
VS.
ROBERT M. MUMMA II AND HIGH-SPEC, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA
• CORPORATION
2006-2197 Civil Term
462 MDA 2007
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No. a3~ to ay ~ ,and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court is 09- .~5-2007 .
Curti .Long, Prothonotary
Regina K. Lebo, Deputy
An additional copy of this certificate is enclosed. Please sign and date copy, thereby
acknowledging receipt of this record.
• orr+non ru ED IN
Date Signature itle
StP 2 6 2007
MIDDLE