- 6 -
cashier’s check and deposited the balance into an account, this
distinction is irrelevant to our analysis. It is undisputed that
petitioners engaged in the transaction and had use of the money.
Although petitioners were notified by the Court at trial that
Tokarski was directly on point and would be the basis of our
analysis, petitioners’ brief failed to address the case or
otherwise negate its persuasiveness. (Petitioners’ brief failed
to comply with the requirements of Rule 151(e) by neglecting to
discuss any applicable legal authority and failing to include
proposed findings of fact.)
Petitioner offered inconsistent information during
examinations and conflicting testimony at trial regarding the
1991 transaction. Moore and Lyons both gave credible testimony,
and both took contemporaneous notes of their interviews with
petitioner. Petitioners were unable directly to contradict
Moore’s and Lyons’s testimony about the examinations because
petitioner repeatedly stated that he did not remember his
conversations with them. We have no reason to doubt their
credibility and have found as fact their versions of what
occurred.
During trial, petitioner testified in response to questions
from his counsel:
Q In 1991, how old was your dad?
A In his eighties somewhere.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011