- 10 -
H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, supra at 240-241, 1998-3 C.B. at 994-995.
In the context of the valuation issue presented in these
cases, the question of who has the burden or proof is irrelevant.
The parties have stipulated the operative facts and documents.
Quantitatively, the parties’ stipulation is the source of the
vast majority of the facts predicated in our opinion. In
addition to the parties’ stipulation, during the trial, each
party offered four items of documentary evidence, seven of which
were received into the record of these cases. Finally, only one
fact witness, coexecutor William J. Deputy, was called to
testify. Most of the transcript consists of the cross-
examination of the parties’ tendered experts’ opinion testimony
on the question of value.
The parties were required to file simultaneous posttrial
briefs. The estate’s reply brief, filed in response to
respondent’s opening brief, contained no objections to
respondent’s extensive proposed findings of fact. Likewise,
respondent’s reply to the estate’s opening brief contained only
limited objections to the estate’s proposed findings. In great
part, the parties’ posttrial briefing focused on the experts’
opinions and their “spin” on the essentially agreed facts.
In these circumstances, the question of which party has or
had the burden of proof has become wholly academic. In the
context of these cases, there is no need to analyze or decide
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011