- 64 -
breeding partnerships’ purportedly recourse notes against a
partnership and its partners on a genuinely recourse basis. In
that regard, the Court does not find believable Jay Hoyt’s
testimony to the contrary.
Jay Hoyt testified that although the cattle-breeding
partnerships formed before 1986 (including several of the seven
in the instant cases) had been limited partnerships, by about
1986 many of them had been converted to general partnerships
following the execution of restated partnership agreements for
them. Even before this conversion, he added, limited partner
investors had executed assumption agreements, pursuant to which
they agreed to be fully personally liable for all amounts owed
under the “Full Recourse Promissory Note” their partnership had
issued for its purchased breeding cattle. He related that he
typically had signed an individual investor’s name to an
assumption agreement on behalf of that investor, pursuant to a
power of attorney the investors had granted him.37
37Many of the alleged partnership agreements, promissory
notes, and other related documents that purportedly were executed
during the 1987 through 1992 period do not appear in the record.
Jay Hoyt claimed that these documents were unavailable because
they had been seized by postal inspectors from the Hoyt
organization’s offices in June 1995. However, as indicated
earlier supra note 19, the postal inspector who conducted the
seizure also testified. This postal inspector related that he
had (1) provided Jay Hoyt with an inventory of the seized
documents shortly after the seizure was effected, and (2) later
(a) offered Jay Hoyt and other Hoyt organization representatives
access to the seized documents and (b) provided them with copies
(continued...)
Page: Previous 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011