- 37 -
Q When?
A --because I’m not an accountant.
Q When did you ask him to double-check you on that?
A Regularly.
The foregoing exchange solidifies our belief that moneys
were not remitted to the Trust in a calculated effort to comply
with the 4.25-percent entitlement. The vague nature of the
testimony makes clear that the guaranteed payment averments are
nothing more than an attempted after-the-fact justification for
Michael’s actions.
In addition, given that Mr. Blankstein was not engaged until
March or April of 1995, after decedent’s death, his help was
unavailable to Michael for purposes of any of the 1994 or early
1995 distributions, a circumstance which apparently did not deter
Michael from proceeding despite his admitted lack of accounting
expertise. There are also questions with regard to whether
profit and loss allocations called for by the Agreement should
have been made prior to any distribution of funds. In any event,
we are satisfied that respect for the Agreement was not the
catalyst for the disproportionate distributions made to the
Trust.
We are equally unimpressed by the estate’s references to the
fiduciary capacity in which Michael purportedly acted as managing
general partner. The estate claims: “Michael, as the managing
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011