- 26 -
In response, respondent concedes that petitioners’ evidence as to
the subjective beliefs of the parties (petitioners and Howard
County) is persuasive on the issue of donative intent. See supra
sec. IV.A. We take that response as a concession by respondent
that petitioners and the county intended a bargain sale; i.e., a
part sale part gift. Certainly, that conclusion is supported by
the testimony of petitioner Charles Browning (the $6,000 an acre
received for the easement “couldn’t possibly represent the fair
market value of the easement”) and Donna Mennitto, administrator
of the Program (“It was never the intention of the County to pay
the full easement value and we do not believe that we ever did
with the information that we had available.”), and, thus, we
accept respondent’s concession and so find. Moreover, we believe
that the record supports a finding that, under the Program
generally, at the time petitioners conveyed the easement to the
county and before, participants in the Program intended to make a
gift to the county by way of a bargain sale of development
rights. We have the testimony of two participants in the Program
as to that point, petitioner Charles Browning and his neighbor,
Gene Mullinix. In addition, Mr. Mullinix, who was a chairman of
the board that supervised the Program and served on that board
for 10 years, testified that the board that ran the Program never
paid “full” fair market value for any easement that it purchased
under the Program. Ms. Mennitto’s testimony as to the procedures
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011