- 14 -14
for a bequest of property and in settlement of all claims against
Fulvio Suvich's estate. Therefore, respondent's first argument
fails.
Respondent's argument that even if the rationale of Lyeth v.
Hoey, supra, controls, petitioners must still show that the
settlement was for lost inheritance and not for lost income is
likewise undermined by the same admissions (5a. and 5b.) in her
answer. There can be no dispute as to in lieu of what the
$37,898 was paid because respondent admits, in paragraph 5b. of
her answer, that it was paid "pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement" which, when read in conjunction with her admission in
paragraph 5a, means it was "as a substitute for a bequest of
property". Mrs. Marcus did not settle any claims for lost
income; the arrangement made no mention of lost income. The
stepfather, having an interest similar to a life estate, had the
rights to income from the property during his life. Since the
arrangement was entered into in August of 1980, the same year as
the stepfather's death, lost income from the property was not an
issue. Again, there is evidence to support the admitted
allegations.
Respondent's final argument likens the case at bar to Parker
v. United States, 215 Ct. Cl. 773, 573 F.2d 42 (1978). In
Parker, the plaintiffs, brother and sister, sued various family
members on the grounds that the plaintiffs had been improperly
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011