- 16 -
to Elite for the completion of the improvements. As a result,
the term was included as a means for Elite to have a contractual
remedy with respect to JCLC should Triview fail to complete the
improvements. Petitioner also points out that the loans and bond
purchases of Centre, Vision, and Colorado Structures did finance
Triview’s activities, but they did not give JCLC the means to
direct Triview’s development activities.
While JCLC was responsible for limited improvements to the
land it sold to Elite, JCLC did not have employees or engage in
any business activities outside of holding and selling a limited
number of parcels of the Jackson Creek property. JCLC relied on
the existing contractual obligation of Triview to complete the
improvements. Had Triview failed to complete the improvements,
JCLC was contractually obligated to do so, but JCLC was without
the ability to complete the improvements itself. Elite had
contractual recourse against JCLC, and JCLC would have had
contractual recourse against Triview. In the course of events,
Triview satisfied its obligation and completed the development
work. Accordingly, the contractual obligation in of itself, did
not give rise to development activity on the part of JCLC.
Centre, which had similar ownership interests to those of
JCLC, purchased Triview bonds, issued in 1987, at a discounted
price of $2.9 million. That payment represented approximately 40
percent of the $4.8 million face value of the bonds, along with
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011