River City Ranches #4 - Page 101

                                       - 39 -                                         
          were reliable, and that he had been "comfortable" with the bill             
          of sale he issued to each partnership.  Petitioners have now                
          essentially acknowledged to be untrue these earlier factual                 
          assertions that Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hoyt made concerning the                 
          reliability of the bills of sale.  Petitioners state that the               
          bills of sale contained many "errors" and have offered in                   
          evidence corrected bills of sale for the partnerships.                      
               In addition, the Court finds incredible and unworthy of                
          belief petitioners' suggestion that Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hoyt (who            
          were both experienced businessmen and longtime breeders of                  
          purebred livestock) had unknowingly participated in the issuance            
          of unreliable sales documents evidencing the specific breeding              
          sheep these partnerships purportedly purchased.  The Court                  
          further does not believe that, over the long period from about              
          1981, when RCR #1 and Barnes Ranches entered into the first                 
          transaction, through the time of the trial in the instant cases,            
          Mr. Barnes and Mr. Hoyt had been unaware of the many problems               
          with these bills of sale.  Mr. Barnes and his son Randy managed             
          each partnership's "breeding sheep", and the sharecrop agreement            
          each partnership and Barnes Ranches concurrently entered provided           
          the Barnes family was to maintain sufficient records allowing a             
          partnership's "breeding sheep" to be identified at all times.               
          This contractual requirement was never complied with given the              
          considerable difficulty petitioners now have in identifying the             

Page:  Previous  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011