- 15 -
testified that on December 4, 1978, he gave Commerce Bank a check
for $15,000 on behalf of his uncle, as reimbursement for the
finder's fee that Jack Ham owed petitioner. Finally, Nelson,
the bank's president, testified that the $15,000 payment was used
to partially extinguish the oil partnership debt that petitioner
had outstanding with the bank.
Seeking to rebut respondent's evidence, petitioner contends
that although he called Commerce Bank, he did not indicate to
Nelson that he had a personal financial interest in the loan's
being approved, nor did the bank deviate from its policies in
extending credit to Ham. Even if true, these facts do not negate
a finding that petitioner received a $15,000 finder's fee. It is
irrelevant whether petitioner in fact influenced the bank's
decision to extend credit to the Hams. What is relevant is Jack
Ham's perception of the events that led up to the bank's approval
of the loan and his own obligation to pay. Because of the Hams'
difficulty with Commerce Bank in the past, Jack Ham was convinced
that the bank approved the loan solely because of petitioner's
assistance.
To support his contention that he and Jack Ham never had an
agreement, petitioner points to the lack of "anything in writing
evidencing indebtedness between petitioner and [Ham] relating to
a finder's fee". Although the $15,000 debt might have been
unenforceable had Jack Ham refused to pay it, he did in fact pay
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011