- 11 -
October 31, 1984. The partnership offered 80 units of
partnership interest at a price of $45,000 each, payable in
$6,000 cash, and a $39,000 note bearing 11 percent interest
(payable semi-annually) payable in three installments of $13,000
on February 1, 1985, February 3, 1986, and February 2, 1987.
As a condition of becoming a limited partner, an investor
was also required to assume recourse debt of $92,363 per
partnership unit purchased, which represented his or her
proportionate share of the note executed by the partnership in
connection with the purchase of the equipment. The partnership
anticipated that the obligation assumed by the limited partners
6(...continued)
Petitioner also makes a passing objection that, to the
extent the POM summarizes other documents, it represents
inadmissible hearsay. First, we find that the exhibit qualifies
for the "residual" exception under Fed. R. Evid. 803(24) for
statements which do not fit under any other specific hearsay
exception, but nonetheless are inherently trustworthy and
probative, and by whose inclusion justice would be served. See 3
Saltzburg, Fed. R. Evid. Manual at 1439 (1994). The POM
contained summaries of the agreements covering the transactions
involved, the opinion letter of a law firm, financial projections
by an accounting firm, and legally required disclosures for
residents of 26 different States. We are persuaded that the POM
reflected a high degree of competency and reliability on the part
of those involved in its preparation. See Hal Roach Studios,
Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1551-1553 (9th Cir.
1990) (upholding admission of SEC Registration Statement under
Fed. R. Evid. 803(24)). Moreover, its reliability is
corroborated by other supporting documents in the record herein.
See Osterneck v. E. T. Barwick Indus., 106 F.R.D. 327, 337 (N.D.
Ga. 1984).
Second, as can be seen from the discussion below, while the
exhibit does serve to illustrate the transaction at issue, the
elements upon which we rely in reaching our conclusion all have a
separate evidentiary basis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011