- 8 -
would still be in issue. Accordingly, we conclude that an
immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.
After consideration of all of the estate’s arguments and
based upon the record before us, we are not persuaded that our
decision to deny the estate’s motion for entry of decision falls
within the rare category of cases contemplated by Congress when
enacting section 7482(a)(2), and conclude that the requirements
of an interlocutory appeal have not been met.
Conclusion
We note that if the January 14, 2002, fax had contained a
figure higher than the $1,124,410 offered by respondent on the
telephone shortly before the January 14, 2002, fax was sent, it
is likely that the estate’s counsel or accountant would have
immediately contacted respondent and sought to correct the
figure. Instead, the estate’s counsel advised the estate’s
accountant to take undue advantage of the situation.
Accordingly, we shall deny the estate’s motion for
reconsideration and deny the estate’s motion for interlocutory
order under Rule 193(a). To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order
will be issued.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Last modified: May 25, 2011