- 22 -
that it changed its intent with respect only to the 14 lots
fronting Pennsylvania Avenue. It contends that Mr. Baker made a
determination that the 14 lots could be inexpensively subdivided
and that entry-level houses could be profitably built on Tract
No. 10018-1. From that time forward, petitioner's intent was to
hold the 14 lots for sale. After obtaining the final map for
Tract No. 10018-1, petitioner ultimately subdivided the 14 lots,
constructed the 14 houses, and sold the 14 houses.
Petitioner asserts that its intent in regard to Tract No.
10018-1, held for sale, differed from its intent in regard to the
Exchange Property. Mr. Baker testified that at the time of the
filing of the final map for the 14 lots fronting Pennsylvania
Avenue, he had already decided that constructing homes on the
remaining portion of the property was not feasible. Petitioner
contends that it partitioned the 48 lots constituting the
Exchange Property from the rest of the tract, as evidenced by the
recording of the final map relating only to the 14 Lots and
excluding the Exchange Property.9
9 The fact that the final map only pertained to the 14 lots
fronting Pennsylvania Avenue does not lead to the conclusion that
the Exchange Property was held for investment. It is possible
that petitioner partitioned the property for other reasons, such
as minimizing the bond to be posted for improvements on the
property.
We note that a letter, dated Sept. 28, 1983, written by
Garner, Troy & Associates, Inc., and signed by Mr. Baker, implied
that petitioner would undertake in stages the development of the
entire tract:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011