Charles R. Bowden and Sue I. Bowden - Page 10

                                               - 10 -                                                  

            vending machines to AIC.  When the MDFC lease occurred, AIC gave                           
            the same 10 vending machines to Septech to sell to MDFC.                                   
                  In 1986, MDFC sued petitioners and their corporations for                            
            defaulting on the MDFC lease.  On August 27, 1986, a settlement                            
            favoring MDFC was entered by the California superior court.                                
            Under the settlement, MDFC was to receive:  (1) $199,000, (2)                              
            possession of the 10 vending machines in question, and (3) a                               
            second priority judgment lien on property owned by petitioners in                          
            San Bernardino County.  The $199,000 was payable $10,000 on or                             
            before July 15, 1986, and $3,150 per month for 60 months,                                  
            beginning August 1, 1986.  During October 1989, MDFC filed papers                          
            in court reflecting full satisfaction of the settlement in the                             
            California superior court.                                                                 
                  On September 20, 1989, MDFC’s lawyers wrote to Arthur Handel                         
            (Mr. Handel), petitioners’ attorney, indicating that upon the                              
            payment of the personal property taxes escrow amounts, “your                               
            client will be the owner of the Aqualator vending machines                                 
            originally leased.”  On October 18, 1994, MDFC informed Mr.                                
            Bowden by letter that he was entitled to possession of the 10                              
            vending machines as part of the satisfaction of judgment between                           
            MDFC and AIC.  MDFC also stated that it did not take possession                            
            of the vending machines.  MDFC by an October 25, 1994, letter                              
            advised respondent’s agents that MDFC’s judgment against AIC and                           
            petitioners had been fully satisfied on September 6, 1989.  As a                           





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