Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout86-398 orphans : IN THE COURT OF COMMON IN RE ESTATE OF : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ROBERT M. MUMMA, :COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased. :NO. 21-86-398 IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA II FOR ACCOUNTING Before HOFFER, P.J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW,,~' ~-~, 2000, upon consideration of the briefs submitted by both parties, the facts of record, and the applicable law, Petitioner Robert M. Mumma II's petition for an accounting of the Estate and Trusts of Robert M. Mumma, Sr, is hereby granted. An accounting shall be filed within ninety days of this order. The motion of Respondents Barbara McK. Mumma and Lisa M. Morgan for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the minor children of petitioner is denied. By the Court,  p.j. Robert M. Mumma II, Petitioner Box E Bowmansdale, PA 17008 6880 S.E. Harbor Circle Stuart, FL 34996 Pro se Ivo V. Otto III 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Respondents Joseph A. O'Connor, Jr. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Attorneys for Respondents : IN THE COURT OF COMMON IN RE ESTATE OF : PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND ROBERT M. MUMMA, :COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION Deceased. NO. 21-86-398 IN RE: PETITION OF ROBERT M. MUMMA II FOR ACCOUNTING Before HOFFER, P.J. OPINION In this opinion, we address Robed M. Mumma II's request for an accounting. On January 6, 1999, Robert M. Mumma II (hereinafter "petitioner") petitioned this court for an accounting of the estate of his father, Robert M. Mumma Sr. (hereinafter "decedent"), who died testate on April 12, 1986. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The decedent's will and the codicil thereto were probated on June 5, 1986. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The will appoints Mrs. Barbara McK. Mumma, decedent's widow, and Lisa M. Morgan (hereinafter "respondents") as executrices thereof and as trustees of a Marital Trust and a Residuary Trust created thereunder ("the Trusts"). (Respondents' Brief at 1). Under the will, the presumptive remaindermen of the Trusts, if they survive Mrs. Mumma, are the decedent's children: petitioner Robert M. Mumma II, Linda M. Mumma, Barbara M. Mumma and Mrs. Morgan. (Respondents' Brief at 1). The decedent bequeathed to his testamentary trustees an amount equal to fifty percent of his total gross estate to be held in trust exclusively for the benefit of his wife during her lifetime, the principal to be distributed to the decedent's children upon her death. (The will, Article 7). In addition, the decedent gave his residuary estate to his testamentary trustees to be held in trust exclusively for the benefit of his wife during her lifetime, the principal to be paid to the decedent's children upon her death. (The will, Article 8). The respondents filed interim accounts of their acts and transactions as executrices and as trustees on August 9, 1991. (Respondents' Brief at 4). There have been no further accountings since that time. Petitioner disclaimed his interest under the will in 1987. (Respondents' Brief, Ex. A). In 1989, this court granted petitioner's motion to revoke his disclaimer. (Respondents' Brief, Ex. D). Mr. Frey, who was appointed guardian ad litem for the minor persons interested in the Estate in 1988, appealed the revocation of the disclaimer. (Respondents' Brief, Ex. E). The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Frey's representation of the estate with respect to the revocation of the disclaimer was beyond the scope of his limited appointment and therefore he lacked standing to appeal. In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mem. Op., at 2 (Pa. Super. July 18, 1994). Petitioner now asks for a complete accounting of the Estate, including an accounting of the Trusts in which petitioner claims an interest. The respondents claim they cannot provide an accounting to petitioner because he does not have standing, and the issue of the revocation of petitioner's disclaimer has not been fully litigated. Further, respondents ask this court to appoint a guardian ad litem for petitioner's minor children. We will address the claims of both parties in turn. Discussion Petitioner seeks a final accounting of the decedent's Estate pursuant to section 3501.1 of the Decedents, Estates, and Fiduciaries Code? Respondents do not dispute that they must account to those interested in the Estate and Trusts. (Respondents' Brief at 5). However, respondents assert that petitioner does not have an interest in the Estate or Trusts giving him standing to request an accounting. Respondents question whether petitioner's disclaimer has been properly revoked. In their brief, respondents state, "if the disclaimer is still valid, Mr. Mumma II, has absolutely no interest in the Estate or the Trusts and would be an improper party to any accounting proceeding." Respondents' Brief at 6. ~ Six months from the first complete advertisement of the original grant of letters, the personal representative may be cited to file the account by any party in interest. 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3501.1. 3 Respondents contend that since the issue of the revocation of petitioner's disclaimer has not been fully appealed, petitioner has no interest in the Estate. We disagree. This court revoked petitioner's disclaimer in 1989. Although Robert Frey, limited guardian of the minor children of the Estate, appealed the decision, the Superior Court ruled that Mr. Frey did not have standing to appeal the issue and that such an appeal exceeded the scope of his representation. In re Estate of Robert M. Mumma, Mem. Op., at 2 (Pa. Super. July 18, 1994). Respondents' challenge to the validity of petitioner's disclaimer is a collateral attack on the prior judgment of this court revoking the disclaimer. It is a rule of law of general application that a judgment properly entered is not subject to collateral attack. See Mangold v. Neuman, 371 Pa. 496, 500, 91 A.2d 904, 906, (1952). Therefore, respondents may not collaterally attack the prior judgment revoking petitioner's disclaimer. Until adjudicated otherwise, our decision revoking petitioner's disclaimer restores his interest in the Estate. As it has been determined that petitioner is a party in interest, he may petition the court to require the trustee to file an account of the management of the trust estate. See Rock v. Pyle, -- Pa. Super. --, 720 A.2d 137, 142 (1998), In re Wheeler's Estate, 287 Pa. 416, 135 A. 252 (1926). The Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries Code provides that a court may order a trustee to file an account upon the petition of a beneficiary of the trust. 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7181. Although the respondents filed an interim accounting in August of 1991, no evidence of additional accountings has been presented. Respondents, as fiduciaries entrusted with the administration of an estate, have a duty to exercise the utmost fairness in dealing with beneficiaries. See Estate of Bosico, 488 Pa. 274, 278,412 A.2d 505, 507 (1980). Respondents are therefore directed to file an accounting of the Estate and Trusts. Respondents raise the second issue of whether the court should appoint a guardian for the minor children of petitioner. Respondents request that the court appoint a guardian for petitioner's minor children in order to satisfy their possible interests in the event that petitioner's disclaimer is revoked. Rule 12.4 of the Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rules states: (a) On petition of the accountant or any party in interest, or upon its own motion, the court may appoint (1) a guardian ad litem to represent a minor or an incompetent not represented by a guardian or (2) a trustee ad litem to represent an absentee, a presumed decedent, or unborn or unascertained persons not already represented by a fiduciary, unless the court considers that the interests of such persons are adequately represented. Pa.O.C.R. 12.4. As petitioner's children currently do not have any interest under the Trusts, there is no reason to appoint a guardian for the minor children of petitioner. Further, respondents have failed to show that the children's interests are not adequately represented. Therefore, respondents' motion for the appointment of a guardian for petitioner's children is denied.