- 7 -
1993 and that substantial improvements and repairs were begun and
remained ongoing after that time and through the time of the
earthquake. Petitioners’ evidence was sufficient to establish
that the Military property was no longer used as their personal
residence as of January 17, 1994.
Respondent also relies on a statement that respondent’s
agent testified was made during the examination. The testimony
of respondent’s agent is as follows:
I’m not sure if it was the first interview or the
second one. I did see * * * [petitioner] two times,
once in his home and once in the office after hours.
But I know we discussed the earthquake because I
mentioned--I believe I mentioned to him what happened
to us in my home, and I know he said his furniture was
in the house and that he wasn’t out of the house yet.
Petitioners and Mr. Palos’ mother, however, testified under oath
that they were no longer using the Military property as a
residence by the time of the earthquake. In addition, with
extensive repairs underway at the Military property beginning
around October 1993, it is unlikely that petitioners remained in
the house when other and better choices were available to them.
Accordingly, we find that petitioners were not using the subject
property as their personal residence at the time of the
earthquake.
Respondent also questions whether the Military property was
held for sale or rent in such a manner as to be considered
business or income-producing property within the meaning of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011