- 12 -
21, 1991, Mr. Felman accepted the June 4 Ludlow counteroffer.
(We shall refer to the contract that Mr. Felman and EDR entered
into for the purchase of the Ludlow property from EDR as the
Ludlow property purchase contract.)
In anticipation of finalizing and thereafter closing the
tentative exchange transaction, by letter dated July 6, 1991
(July 6 letter), Mr. Signom sent Mr. Packard a document entitled
“DEED OF GIFT”, which also was dated July 6, 1991 (July 6 docu-
ment). The July 6 letter stated in pertinent part:
In re: Donation to University of Dayton
Dear Dick:
In our recent conversation about the above refer-
enced matter, you suggested that I execute a “Deed of
Gift” to the University covering my Purchase Option on
the St. Clair Street property, effective immediately.
Enclosed herewith, please find that Deed of Gift.
It is my understanding that, if it meets with your
approval, you will forward it to your client; if it
does not, you will contact me with all deliberate speed
with your suggested modifications.
The July 6 document, which related only to MHR Properties’
purchase option and not to MHR Properties’ leasehold interest,
stated in pertinent part:
DEED OF GIFT
3(...continued)
the June 4 Ludlow counteroffer are not material to a resolution
of the issue presented in this case under sec. 170.
For reasons not disclosed by the record, the June 4 Ludlow
counteroffer was signed again by a representative of EDR on June
19, 1991.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011