- 37 -
have Ms. Signom sign it prior to that anticipated closing. Mr.
Deas expected Mr. Signom to have that document signed by Ms.
Signom and to bring it with him to the July 31 anticipated
closing. On July 26, 1991, both Mr. Signom and Ms. Signom signed
the July 22 document. We believe that the only reason petition-
ers signed the July 22 document on July 26, 1991, prior to the
closing of the final exchange transaction on August 1, 1991, was
because Ms. Signom was unable to attend that closing, and Mr.
Signom requested that Mr. Deas mail the July 22 document to him
so that Ms. Signom could sign it prior to the August 1 closing.
The July 22 document, as signed by Brother Ploeger on behalf of
the University on July 22, 1991, and by Mr. Signom and Ms. Signom
on behalf of MHR Properties on July 26, 1991, was delivered at
the August 1 closing.9 On the instant record, we find that the
July 22 document did not effect a cancellation of the Mumma/MHR
Properties lease agreement, including MHR Properties’ purchase
option, as of July 26, 1991, or as of any other date prior to
August 1, 1991, the date of the closing of the final exchange
9On the instant record, we reject petitioners’ contention
that they delivered the July 22 document to Mr. Deas on July 26,
1991, after they signed it and prior to the August 1 closing.
Assuming arguendo that we were to have found that petitioners
returned the July 22 document to Mr. Deas after they signed it on
July 26, 1991, and before the August 1 closing, we nonetheless
find on the record in this case that such a delivery of that
document did not constitute a contribution or gift to the Univer-
sity of MHR Properties’ St. Clair property interests within the
meaning of sec. 170(c).
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011