- 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 thePage: 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