Estate of William T. Rogers - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

          substantial understatement.  We have considered respondent's                
          remaining arguments and find them irrelevant or unnecessary to              
               To reflect the foregoing,                                              
                                                  Decision will be entered            
                                             for petitioners.                         

          7    Respondent has, on brief, advanced the argument that Great             
          Western is a sham corporation controlled by Mr. Rogers through              
          his attorney John Konvalinka, who is the brother-in-law of Ms.              
          Hanna.  We note that on the day this case was called for trial,             
          before the parties agreed to submit the case as fully stipulated,           
          respondent attempted to assert this theory.  Upon petitioner's              
          objection and the Court's inquiry, respondent specifically                  
          disavowed any such theory regarding the transaction in issue in             
          the instant case.  Respondent has offered no reason why the Court           
          should consider such an argument.                                           
               Moreover, respondent's protestations of sham are not                   
          supported by the evidence in the record.  The parties have                  
          stipulated that Great Western was a validly formed corporation              
          owned by Ms. Hanna.  Additionally, there is extensive                       
          correspondence between Ms. Hanna and various third parties that             
          evidence Ms. Hanna's active participation in the management and             
          sale of the nonhospital properties.  Accordingly, even if we were           
          to consider respondent's sham-transaction theory, we would hold             
          that respondent has failed to carry the burden of proof on that             
          issue as well.                                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  

Last modified: May 25, 2011