- 4 -
losses reported by Thunderbird. We found that the language
of the consent is clear and unambiguous, and there was no
justification to look beyond the terms of the consent in
determining the intent of the parties. We interpreted the
terms of the consent to mean that the parties thereto
mutually agreed that adjustments to petitioners' 1978
return during the extended period could be made to
petitioners' share of the partnership items reported by
Thunderbird. We noted that partnership items of BDB which
did not originate with Thunderbird were not covered under
the consent. We further noted that if the consent had
specified that adjustments could be made to the partnership
items from BDB, as petitioners claimed were necessary, then
the consent would have covered all partnership items from
BDB. Thus, it would have been a different and broader
consent than the consent that was executed.
Shortly after we issued Brody I, proceedings in the
case were stayed for some time pursuant to the automatic
stay in bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. section 362(a)(8) (1994).
When the bankruptcy stay was lifted, we set the case for
trial.
In due course before trial, respondent filed a motion
for summary judgment on the ground that the sole assignment
of error raised in the petition had already been decided by
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011