- 6 -
At trial, petitioner opined that a large portion of the
costs of the J car could be determined by examining the deposits
into the auto shop's checking account as written on those check
stubs. However, the sources of the deposits were not indicated
on the stubs, only the dates and amounts. Petitioner suggested
that one easily could distinguish the deposits related to
petitioner's payments for car expenses, as their amounts were
substantially larger than the $18.50 normally received by the
shop for alignments. By this method, petitioner's tally of the
deposits he claimed were related to the J car totaled $44,566 for
42 months. From this, he determined an average per-month figure
of $1,061 and calculated the amounts spent during the months
missing from the check stubs to be another $18,038 ($44,566 � 42
x 17) for 17 months, for a total of $63,681.4 However,
petitioner did not own the auto shop for 59 months. Petitioner
presented no supporting bank account or credit card statements.
He also did not provide any evidence that the auto shop had paid
for the car expenses and, if the auto shop had paid such
expenses, that such had not been deducted either on petitioner's
4 Petitioner made several arithmetical errors in his
computations. The deposit amounts that petitioner read into the
record (which figures are the same figures the Court wrote down
during the trial) do not add up to petitioner's subtotal of
$27,489 in the transcript or his total of $44,566. Moreover, the
Court could not verify all of those deposit amounts from the
check stubs in evidence. Finally, the $44,566 and $18,038 sums
add up to $62,604, not $63,681, but since there are errors in
both of those sums, it serves no useful purpose to correct the
total figure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011