- 14 -
substantial understatement. We have considered respondent's
remaining arguments and find them irrelevant or unnecessary to
reach.7
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