Harry Olstein - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         

          the Superior Court's October 27, 1992, final judgment, HJV                  
          received the amount due under the terms of the note and mortgage            
          relating to the 1989 sale, and it received interest and nominal             
          damages relating to the incomplete 1991 sale.  Both parties filed           
          notices of appeal.  In its appeal, HJV requested additional                 
          damages relating to the incomplete 1991 sale because, due to the            
          current depressed real estate market, the 19 lots would sell for            
          an amount much lower than provided in the original contract.                
               On December 30, 1992, the parties entered into a settlement            
          agreement relating to the remaining lots.  Pursuant to the                  
          settlement agreement, the Kramers conveyed 9 undeveloped lots               
          from the 1989 sale, and HJV conveyed 19 lots from the sale                  
          scheduled to occur in 1991, to Whitehouse, a partnership created            
          in 1984 and composed of petitioner, the Olstein Family                      
          Partnership and H-EAB-O (i.e., an S corporation owned by                    
          petitioner).  Petitioner believed that the settlement agreement             
          was the only feasible way to dispose of the lots (i.e., because             
          of the pending appeal of the Superior Court's decision Whitehouse           
          could not convey clear title and, even if Whitehouse had clear              
          title, the real estate market for undeveloped lots was depressed)           
          and resolve the dispute with the Kramers (i.e., due to the                  
          Kramers' financial difficulties, it was unlikely that they could            
          pay any judgment in full).  In addition, petitioner wanted to               
          avoid paying additional legal expenses relating to the appeal.              





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011