18
reaffirm" the settlement he had reached with respondent. This
argument is without merit.
Fensterheim's letter of September 9, 1992, did not purport
to be a settlement. It was merely correspondence in which
Fensterheim alleged that all of his interests in the Transpac
partnerships had been settled in 1991.
Respondent's authorized representative did not execute the
Forms 870-L(AD) for Transpac partnerships 1982-15 and 1982-21,
and we have found that there were no settlement agreements for
Transpac partnerships 1982-15 and 1982-21 for Fensterheim to
"ratify and reaffirm".
Subsequent to Fensterheim's letter of September 9, 1992,
Goldbas sent a duplicate set of settlement documents to
Fensterheim covering Transpac partnerships 1982-15 and 1982-21,
which Fensterheim ignored. If Fensterheim had intended finally
to consummate the settlement in September 1992, as suggested in
his alternative argument, he could easily have done so by signing
the duplicate set of settlement documents.
Fensterheim was his own only witness. He was clear and
positive regarding facts favorable to him, but vague and cavalier
with respect to matters adverse to him. He seemed to know the
difference. He was well prepared. After listening to
Fensterheim's testimony and observing him on the stand, we do not
find his version of the facts to be believable. We conclude that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011