- 11 -
the property without a broker and that petitioner wife spent her
days at the property, using the telephone and doing the family's
laundry while she was posted there for the sale of the townhouse.
Petitioners also attempt to explain a pattern of telephone calls
reflecting that the townhouse telephone was used more and at the
crucial times (early and late in the day) when a family member
would normally be home, by explaining that: plans were being
made for Matthew's wedding; Matthew was using the phone early and
late in the day when he stayed in the townhouse; and petitioner
wife would use the phone while she was at the townhouse.
Although petitioners' explanations would account for some of
the inconsistencies between the utility bills and petitioners’
alleged use of Fairway and/or townhouse, the evidence in this
case supports our finding that the townhouse property was being
used to an extent greater than has been explained by petitioners.
Petitioners have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
they used Fairway as their principal residence prior to June 21,
1990. That evidence includes their testimony and that of their
son, Matthew, a business associate, a neighbor, a construction
workman, and the buyer of the townhouse, all of whom corroborate
petitioners' testimony about their use of the Fairway residence
as their principal residence prior to June 21, 1990. However, a
disparity remains between petitioners' explanation and certain of
the evidence in the case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011