- 12 -
Law”. An attendant Judgment was issued on April 14, 1998 (the
Judgment in Cause No. 96-60). One conclusion reached by the
State court was that the ranch equipment was includable in the
probate estate of decedent. Among the findings of fact made by
the State court were the following:
19. The parties [decedent and the Jakubeks]
negotiated, drafted and signed a Livestock Agreement
[(the livestock agreement)] in February 1993 * * *
* * * * * * *
35. The Jakubeks also contend that Gail breached
the Agreement [the livestock agreement] by refusing to
provide necessary machinery and equipment to operate
the ranch and maintain a cow/calf operation. The
necessary machinery and equipment at issue was a ranch
truck and ranch tractor. Under the Livestock Agreement
Theodore specifically agreed:
. . . to provide and maintain necessary equipment
for ranch operation, cattle, pasture and hay
ground. To provide animal health for cows and
their calves, to include; veterinary services,
vaccines, and supplies, pasture, hay, straw and
feed supplements.
* * * * * * *
39. As for the truck, Gail initially promised to
make the payments on the truck and tractor. (P. Ex.
24). Later she claimed that she could not make the
payments because the Estate was without the funds.
Later still she claimed that she was not responsible
for making the payments on the truck because the truck
was sold to “Abagail Ranch, Inc.” and there was no such
entity. She also claimed she did not need to make
payments on the truck because of a claimed forged
signature on the sales documents. * * * Nevertheless,
she demanded that the truck be returned to her as an
asset of the Estate * * * and claimed to own the
tractor as of August 1995. * * *
40. Gail claimed to have purchased the ranch
machinery in August of 1995 and produced a document
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