- 12 -
was paid to her former husband, Mr. Anderson,5 pursuant to the
dissolution judgment.6 Petitioner’s contention rests on a theory
that the litigation against Mr. Gans and his related businesses
was brought on behalf of Neena Mosha and Mr. Anderson as partners
of Neena Mosha.
We find petitioner’s agency argument is without merit.
Petitioner was the sole party filing suit against Mr. Gans and
his related businesses. The record lacks any corroborating
evidence that Mr. Anderson or the other alleged partners of Neena
Mosha were involved with the litigation. As discussed above,
there is also some doubt that the entity Neena Mosha existed at
any time relevant to this case.
Therefore, based upon the entire record, we find that
petitioner is not entitled to a deduction of $3,728.65 as payment
to Mr. Anderson. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
We have considered all arguments made by the parties, and,
to the extent not discussed above, conclude they are irrelevant
or without merit.
5 Respondent argues, and we agree, that petitioner has
failed to substantiate any payment to Mr. Anderson.
6 The dissolution judgment stated the following: “That
the issue of the lawsuit involving Neena Mosha is reserved.”
Without further explanation or action by the Circuit Court of the
Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois, we find that the
dissolution judgment does not mandate, as petitioner suggests, a
distribution of a portion of the settlement proceeds to Mr.
Anderson in any capacity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011