Gerald Dennis Strong - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
               respondent’s representative stated there were                          
               alternatives available to petitioner which, in fact, it                
               now states now are not available due to, among other                   
               matters, res judicata.                                                 
          Oral argument on respondent’s motion was held at the calendar               
          call for the Court’s trial session on which the instant case had            
          previously been set for trial.  The proceedings on respondent’s             
          motion ended with the following:                                            
                    THE COURT:  Would your attorney be able to -- your                
               attorney in you[r] bankruptcy case be able to back up your             
               contention that you were misled?                                       
                    MR. STRONG:  She would and the expert witnesses we had            
               at the bankruptcy hearing would otherwise be able to do                
               that.                                                                  
                    THE COURT:  At this point, the Court could not conclude           
               that there is no substantial dispute about a material fact,            
               and so Respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment is             
               denied.  However, Respondent’s contention that -- I guess              
               it’s res judicata rather than collateral estoppel.                     
                    MS. GLAZMAN:  Yes, Your Honor.                                    
                    THE COURT:  Respondent’s contention that res judicata             
               precludes a determination of those issues in Petitioner’s              
               favor in this case is never -- nevertheless has been                   
               properly raised and is still before the Court.                         
               We consider first the matters involved in respondent’s                 
          contentions as to preclusion, see Rules 39 and 41(b)(1),7 and               
          then we consider the parties’ dispute as to petitioner’s filing             
          status.                                                                     




               7Unless indicated otherwise, all Rule references are to the            
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                  





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011