Robert E. Signom, II and Lola Signom - Page 39




                                       - 39 -                                         
          purchase option had been a gift to the University, which was                
          completed no later than July 26, 1991, Mr. Felman would not have            
          needed any contractual assurance as of August 1, 1991, that MHR             
          Properties’ St. Clair property interests had been canceled.                 
          However, on the record before us, we have found, and we believe             
          that Mr. Felman (as well as the University) concluded, that the             
          July 22 document did not effect a cancellation of MHR Properties’           
          leasehold interest and MHR Properties’ purchase option as of July           
          26, 1991, the date on which petitioners signed that document, or            
          on any other date prior to August 1, 1991.  That is why we                  
          believe that when the University, Mr. Signom, and Mr. Felman                
          entered into the final property exchange agreement on August 1,             
          1991, that agreement (like the tentative property exchange                  
          agreement) required Mr. Signom to secure the cancellation of                
          those property interests as part of the final exchange transac-             
          tion which closed on August 1, 1991.  On the instant record, we             
          find that the cancellation of MHR Properties’ St. Clair property            
          interests was not separate from the final exchange transaction              
          that took place at the August 1 closing.  We further find on that           
          record that that cancellation was effected as of August 1, 1991,            
          pursuant to the final property exchange agreement as an integral            
          part of that final exchange transaction.                                    
               We turn now to petitioners’ contention that they did not               
          expect to, were not entitled to, and did not receive any quid pro           
          quo from the University in return for the cancellation of MHR               




Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011