- 27 -
(penalty equal to five times the interest not paid). We assume
that the daughters could have avoided that penalty by making good
on Parker's default. The exposure of the $2 million notes under
the related agreement goes to the value of the notes, not to
their ownership. In any event, the daughters received
substantial compensation for the $2 million notes. Also, we have
found that Parker's gift to the daughters was made in 1980, not
in 1985.
d. Credibility
We have found that Parker made gifts to the daughters in
1980 based on our analysis of those elements (intent, delivery,
and acceptance) necessary to establish a gift under the law of
Texas. Necessarily, we have rejected the daughters' proposed
finding that Parker made no gifts to them until 1985, after he
received the proceeds of the $2 million notes. In finding gifts
in 1980, and not thereafter, we have taken into account the
testimony of Parker, the daughters, and others. We found Parker
to be a credible witness. His testimony was straightforward and
consistent with other evidence. We have given great weight to
his testimony. We did not find the daughters to be credible
witnesses. Teresa did not offer oral testimony, but her
testimony was offered by deposition and affidavit. She also
answered interrogatories. There are significant inconsistencies
between (1) her testimony and her answers to interrogatories and
(2) other evidence in this case. We believe that, in various
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011