- 7 -
We need not address all of the implications of the Preslar
opinion as to the scope of exceptions to the discharge of
indebtedness income. The question in this case is whether a debt
existed as asserted by respondent in the amount of $32,566.70
before the settlement between petitioner and MBNA. On the facts
of this case, we do not totally agree with either party.
Petitioner argues that respondent’s failure to call any
witnesses from MBNA gives rise to a negative inference.
Respondent was not required to call such witnesses, and the
records maintained by MBNA were received in evidence as a result
of the stipulation. The MBNA statements, however, standing
alone, do not establish a debt between petitioner and MBNA beyond
the amount that petitioner admitted in his handwritten notes on
the May 1996 statement. Petitioner’s testimony about the ongoing
dispute is not contradicted. He explained his failure to have
documents corroborating the dispute with MBNA between June 1996
and September 1997 as attributable to his disposal of those
records after the dispute was resolved. The pattern of his
payments, however, shows a 3-month gap between the July and
October 1996 payments and almost 5 months between the October
1996 payment and a payment in March 1997. The payments made for
March through September 1997 were minimal in relation to the size
of the account. Petitioner objected to certain late fees on the
ground that timely payments were made. Between January and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011