- 29 -
support of Mahmoud in any case because the money was deposited
into the household checking account. We disagree with both
arguments.
The two checks were payable to Mahmoud and have memo
notations indicating that they are for “Perry’s Settlement”. Fuad
testified that the checks represent the amount to which Mahmoud
would be entitled for the settlement of Daya International’s legal
dispute if Mahmoud had not owed Fuad money. Fuad further
explained: “I loan Mahmoud, to his family, so he can eat. Because
I loan him many other things.” When pressed for additional
information, Fuad indicated the checks were a gift. The record as
a whole suggests that Fuad provided the $17,500 to Mahmoud to
enable Mahmoud to provide for his family but that Mahmoud was
under no obligation to spend the money in any particular manner or
to repay Fuad. Despite petitioners’ contentions in their brief,
nothing in the record indicates the money was a gift to Gabriel or
Morhaf from Fuad.
The deposit of the $17,500 into the household checking
account does not mean that the money should be attributed to
Gabriel for determining his contributions to Mahmoud’s support
simply because Gabriel was the owner of the account. The record
does not suggest that Gabriel received the money from his father
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011