- 15 -
existed between Petitioner and Colonial, further supporting
the fact that the transaction at issue created an
enforceable, and secure transaction."
Petitioners also take the position that the loan
obtained from Colonial Bank was discharged. While
petitioners are vague about when the discharge took place,
their position must be that the loan was discharged in
1989. In this connection, petitioners' brief asks the
Court to make the following findings of fact:
10. Colonial is no longer enforcing its
rights to pursue Petitioners for the recovery
of the $886,026.00.
11. Colonial has never sought to have a
Writ of Execution issued on the Default Judgment.
[Record references omitted.]
Petitioners' brief makes the following argument:
Colonial took a tax deduction for the loss
attributable to Petitioner, Ronald Bradshaw's
debt. Colonial has indicated that it is not
pursuing Petitioner, Ronald Bradshaw for the
repayment of the $886,026.00. Colonial has
also never asked the sheriff to issue a Writ of
Execution on the aforementioned Default Judgment.
Colonial's officers indicated that it was the
policy of Colonial to issue 1099's whether or
not such income related to kiting losses or any
losses on any loans.
In summary, petitioners concede that they received
income during 1989 in the amount of approximately $886,000.
However, they contend that the income was from the
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