- 20 -
finance companies would not take the note and that the lots were
unmarketable because $3,300 had to be put up in order to obtain
good title to a lot.
By contending that the note had no fair market value upon
receipt, petitioner assumes the burden of establishing that
contention. See Rule 142(a). We do not consider the fact that
petitioner failed to convince County Bank to accept the note as
having any weight. There may have been other reasons aside from
the marketability of the note which prevented County Bank from
accepting it. Petitioner did not offer into evidence anything
from County Bank indicating its refusal to accept the note and
why. No expert witnesses testified that there was no market for
the note.
Petitioner does assert on brief that he “testified as to his
past experience in selling or hypothecating notes of this type”.
When we review the testimony cited by petitioner, we note that he
testified only with regard to his experience with this note, not
any past experiences with other similar notes. With regard to
his experience with the note in question, he did not provide any
corroborating evidence to support his testimony (e.g., testimony
from a representative of County Bank indicating that County Bank
refused to accept the note because it had no value).
In our opinion, the evidence does not sustain petitioner’s
contention. Petitioner has not established any lesser value or
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011