- 78 -
UBC had mistakenly used a 7-year recovery period. In the answer,
respondent merely denied petitioner’s averment. In their respective
trial memoranda, neither party identified the discrepancy in
treatment between the furniture and fixtures and the 1990-91
furniture and fixtures. In their stipulations, however, the parties
recognize the discrepancy, and petitioner concedes that it is not
entitled to any additional depreciation with respect to the 1990-91
furniture and fixtures. On brief, petitioner argues that the only
applicable recovery period issue before the Court concerns the
furniture and fixtures. Respondent argues that the Court must also
determine the applicable recovery period with respect to the 1990-91
furniture and fixtures because that issue either (1) was put in
issue by the petition or (2) was tried with consent of the parties.
We do not believe that petitioner intended to put into issue
the applicable recovery period with respect to the 1990-91 furniture
and fixtures, nor do we believe that that issue was tried with
petitioner’s consent. Rule 31(d) requires us to construe all
pleadings to do substantial justice. Substantial justice would not
be done were we to hold petitioner to an unintended construction of
its pleading, especially in light of respondent’s uninformative
response. Clearly, the issue was not tried with petitioner’s
consent in light of the stipulation and the lack of any notice by
respondent that he intended to raise the issue. The parties have
relied only on the stipulated facts in briefing this issue, so we
cannot conclude that petitioner failed to object to evidence that
should have put petitioner on notice that the applicable recovery
Page: Previous 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011