- 7 -
exceeded the sale price, the contribution took place in 1992 when
the contract was signed and not 1993.
Regarding the first theory, we reject respondent's
contention that Arbor did not own an interest in Wolverine Tower
to convey to U of M. The leaseback contract clearly conveyed to
Arbor both the "improvements" on the land and Wolverine's
interest in the land lease. Although we are unable to find that
Wolverine executed a deed transferring the building from
Wolverine to Arbor, a deed was not required to transfer ownership
under the facts herein. The leaseback contract stated that upon
satisfactory completion of the leaseback contract terms and
payments, Wolverine was to deliver to Arbor "a duly executed
warranty bill of sale, * * * of the Improvements, Fixtures and
Equipment, sufficient to transfer to the Purchaser the title to
the Improvements, Fixtures and Equipment". While petitioner's
case would have been strengthened by evidence that the
contemplated "bill of sale" was ultimately executed, the absence
of this is not controlling.6 Gordon's testimony that Arbor
acquired Wolverine Tower under the leaseback contract is
corroborated by documentary evidence. On the totality of this
6The record contains no evidence of whether a bill of sale
or other document (in addition to the leaseback contract)
conveying the title to the improvements was executed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011