- 9 -
contract”, decedent replied “That’s right.” The Judgment of
Equitable Distribution held as follows:
239. All of the evidence indicates and the Court
finds that there was no consideration for Defendant’s
father giving to Defendant options to acquire
Defendant’s father’s interest in the five partnerships.
Both Defendant and his father testified unequivocally
that the options were gifts to Defendant from
Defendant’s father. The Court finds such testimony to
be credible and further finds that these options were
gifts to Defendant from his father. [Emphasis added.]
At issue in the equitable distribution litigation was the
value of Fred Jr.’s 50-percent general partnership interest in
the partnerships. In this regard, Fred Jr. was asked whether the
idea of HUD-subsidized projects originated with him or decedent,
and he testified that he could not recall. As part of the
litigation, both the plaintiff (Fred Jr.’s former spouse) and the
defendant (Fred Jr.) produced expert witnesses and reports
regarding the value of Fred Jr.’s 50-percent general partnership
interest in the partnerships as of December 1989. The court
accepted the plaintiff’s expert appraisal of GMA prepared by
Mitchell Kaye (Kaye). In his appraisal, Kaye estimated the net
fair market value of GMA as of December 31, 1989, to be $450,000
and concluded that Fred Jr.’s 50-percent interest in GMA had a
net fair market value of $225,000 as of December 31, 1989. The
court also accepted the expert appraisals of Robert O. Beck III
(Beck), who relied on David A. Dvorak (Dvorak) in valuing the
improved real estate held by Monroe and Charlotte, and Tom J.
Keith (Keith) in valuing the improved real estate held by Clinton
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011