- 20 -
We are convinced that, on some date, Good Shepherd acquired
title to the property. A title insurance policy effective
December 13, 1990, states that title to the property is, on that
date, in the name of Good Shepherd. Nevertheless, we have in
evidence no deed or other document conveying title to Good
Shepherd on that date or before. We know that title to the
property passed to Litas by quitclaim deed in September 1985. We
also know that, in December 1985, Litas made the first Litas
indenture in favor of Salesian. We also know that, in December
1986, Litas made the second Litas indenture in favor of Salesian.
There is no evidence that, during the years in question, Good
Shepherd assumed that Salesian obligation. Petitioners' position
is that Litas, on behalf of Good Shepherd, assumed the Salesian
obligation. Vebeliunas testified that Litas acted on behalf of
Good Shepherd in that respect. Again, such testimony strikes us
as enlightened hindsight, and we give it no credence. More
importantly, if Litas was acting on behalf of Good Shepherd, it
was putting its own credit on the line when it made the two
indentures. There is, however, no evidence of any agreement by
Good Shepherd to reimburse Litas for any payments it was required
to make pursuant to the indentures. The logic of that omission
is that Litas was an obligor on its own behalf, and not on behalf
of Good Shepherd. We do not understand all that went on here,
but that is petitioners' fault. They have the burden of proof.
Suffice it to say that they have not convinced us that Good
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011