- 7 -
Respondent asserts Mr. Levin's credibility and lack of
motive to testify falsely. Respondent contends that Ms. Levin's
denial of Mr. Levin's authority is an afterthought. Respondent
contends that Ms. Levin's conduct after the decision was entered,
particularly her participation in an Offer in Compromise and in
the bankruptcy proceedings, shows that she authorized or ratified
the petition in this case.
The issue here is not relative fault during the unhappy
marriage of petitioners. The issue is whether Mr. Levin acted
within the scope of authority granted by Ms. Levin when he
authorized Schulman and Gelfand to file a petition and to settle
this case on behalf of petitioners. The execution of the power
of attorney and the subsequent extension of the period of
limitations are not material unless the decision is vacated
either for lack of jurisdiction or because there was a fraud on
the Court.
The testimony of petitioners is conflicting. The testimony
of the other witnesses, Anson, Gelfand, and an expert handwriting
analyst, does not address directly the question of Mr. Levin's
authority. There is no objective evidence from which we can find
that one or the other petitioner is testifying falsely. We
believe, however, that the passage of time, the emotional
entanglements of the parties, and the conflicting interests of
petitioners in this proceeding render the assertions of each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011