Leonard Ray Blanton and Betty Blanton - Page 15

                                                - 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                              
                  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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011