- 27 -
not accepted.14 Additionally, the evidence in the record
indicates that the Jarvis Christian defendants vigorously
contested Exxon’s claims. These facts, including Mr. Glasser’s
testimony, support a finding that the fair market value of
Exxon’s claim as of decedent’s date of death was significantly
less than the amount Exxon was seeking, and not more than the
$681,840 allowed in the notice of deficiency.
14At trial on remand, the estate objected, under Fed. R.
Evid. 408, to the introduction of Exhibit 60, which was the
letter containing the settlement offer from Exxon to the Allen
parties. Exhibit 60 was included in the second supplemental
stipulation of facts that was filed prior to the trial on remand.
The second supplemental stipulation of facts states that “Any
relevance objection may be made with respect to all or any part
of this stipulation at or before the time of trial, but all other
evidentiary objections are waived unless specifically expressed
in this stipulation.” In the second supplemental stipulation of
facts, the estate objected to Exhibit 60 only on the grounds of
relevance and hearsay. A fundamental rule of evidence is that an
objection not timely made is waived. United States v. Jamerson,
549 F.2d 1263, 1266-1267 (9th Cir. 1977); Fed. R. Evid.
103(a)(1). In the instant case, the estate waived all
evidentiary objections to Exhibit 60 except for relevance and
hearsay, and failed to make a timely objection. See, e.g.,
Calcasieu Marine Nat. Bank v. Grant, 943 F.2d 1453, 1458 (5th
Cir. 1991); Fed. R. Evid. 103(a)(1). In any event, the estate
did not raise an objection based on Fed. R. Evid. 408 to the
admission of Exhibit 82, which was the estate tax return for
Frankie Allen which decedent signed and filed in her capacity as
executrix of Frankie’s estate. The same settlement offer from
Exxon to the Allen parties was included in the estate tax return.
See supra pp. 10-11, 26. Additionally, we note that settlement
evidence may be admissible where it relates to a claim other than
the one being litigated, Towerridge, Inc. v. T.A.O., Inc., 111
F.3d 758, 770 (10th Cir. 1997), or where it is for a purpose
other than to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or
its amount. Reichenbach v. Smith, 528 F.2d 1072, 1074 (5th Cir.
1976); Fed. R. Evid. 408.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011