- 59 -
other than the family farm. Petitioner's brief even asserts at
one point that the family, including decedent, pooled all its
resources and contributed them to the family businesses,
including the family farm.
We reject this attempt to confuse the issues. There simply
is no evidence that decedent's investment income was used to pay
decedent's share of the expenses of any family business other
than the family farm. Indeed, elsewhere in its brief petitioner
states that "There is no testimony from any party that Ona's
[decedent's] money was not used for the farm."14 By contrast,
there is a great deal of evidence that decedent and the children
did not pool all their assets and in fact owned several business
interests separately. For example, although decedent owned the
family farm land as a tenant in common with the children, it is
undisputed that decedent also owned other farm land outright and
that she treated the income from that land as her separate
property. As another example, the parties have stipulated that
the children had a farming partnership, in which decedent was not
a partner; they have also stipulated that Donald Hendrickson, his
wife, and his son owned a farming corporation, in which decedent
was not a shareholder.
14 Respondent did not present any witnesses at trial.
Page: Previous 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011