HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-2197 Civil
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. : NO. 2004 – 6183 CIVIL TERM
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 :
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 :
NO. 2004 – 6183 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., May , 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
1
adjudicative authority to enter that final judgment in that case.
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
1
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
“Mandatory exercise of
Code (20 Pa. C.S.A. Section 711). The section title is
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 jurisdiction of the Florida Court in this
case.
___________________ ________________________
DATE Edward E. Guido, J.
John J. Calkins, Esquire
William E. Copley III, Esquire
Eric J. Wiener, Esquire
Ivo V. Otto, III, Esquire
George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire
:sld
3