Edward C. Tietig - Page 20




                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011