In re Estate of Mumma
41 A.3d 41
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Mumma, Sr. died in 1986; his will created a marital trust and a residuary trust, appointing Morgan and Mrs. Mumma as trustees and co-executrixes.
- Mrs. Mumma died in 2010, after which Morgan became sole trustee of Mumma, Sr.’s trusts and executrix of Mrs. Mumma’s estate.
- Mumma II and his sister objected to final accounts beginning in 2004; a court-appointed auditor held 33 days of hearings from 2009 to 2010.
- After Mrs. Mumma’s death in 2010, Morgan filed final accounts and sought court confirmation; Mumma II and B.M. Mumma again objected.
- On Sept. 9, 2010 Mumma II filed a Motion for Disqualification; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing Jan. 28, 2011 and denied the motion.
- Mumma II appeals the denial, arguing Morgan’s dual roles create conflicts of interest that require removal under multiple statutes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Morgan’s dual roles require removal under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3182(1) | Mumma II argues Morgan breached fiduciary loyalty. | Morgan contends no breach; duties are being fulfilled and distributions pursued properly. | No removal; insufficient evidence of breach or jeopardy to the estate. |
| Whether removal is required under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3182(5) for interest jeopardy due to dual roles | Dual roles create intractable conflict of interest. | Dual roles alone do not establish an inevitable conflict; actions show fidelity. | Not warranted; no demonstrated conflict beyond displeasure. |
| Whether the Orphans’ Court erred in not removing under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 3183 | Removal is necessary to protect the rights of the beneficiaries. | Court properly weighed evidence; removal is drastic and unwarranted without clear breach. | Court did not abuse discretion; removal refused. |
| Whether removal as trustee under 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7766(1) or (4) is warranted for breach or substantial change in circumstances | Morgan’s conduct constitutes a serious breach or changed circumstances harming beneficiaries. | No serious breach proven; no substantial change forcing removal. | No removal warranted under § 7766. |
| Whether sufficient cause exists under Pennsylvania decisional law for removal due to conflict of personal and estate interests | Cases support removal where personal interests conflict with estate interests. | Distinguishes cases; here no intractable conflict proven. | Not sufficient; no removal based on conflict of interest. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re White, 506 Pa. 218 (1984) (removal is drastic; must be clear to protect the trust)
- In re Estate of Pitone, 489 Pa. 60 (1980) (trustee removal as drastic remedy when necessary to protect estate)
- In re Estate of Lux, 480 Pa. 256 (1978) (removal justified to protect trust property)
- In re Georgiana’s Estate, 312 Pa. Super. 339 (1983) (collateral order review for denial of removal)
- Matter of Velott, 365 Pa. Super. 313 (1987) (collateral order treatment of removal denial)
- Rafferty’s Estate, 377 Pa. 304 (1954) (conflict of personal and estate interests as basis for removal)
- Gadiparthi, 632 A.2d 942 (Pa. Cmwth. 1993) (conflict of interest analysis in estate administration)
- Westin, 874 A.2d 139 (Pa. Super. 2005) (embezlement by executor as basis for removal)
- In re Dobson’s Estate, 490 Pa. 476 (1980) (surcharge for negligence; not dispositive on removal for conflict)