- 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