- 8 -
The party seeking modification, however, must show that
the failure to allow the modification might prejudice
him. * * * Discretion should be exercised to allow
modification where no substantial injury will be
occasioned to the opposing party; refusal to allow
modification might result in injustice to the moving
party; and the inconvenience to the Court is slight.
[Citations omitted.]
In Stamm and Dorchester Indus., we applied “stringent eve-of-
trial standards” rather than criteria applied in Adams v.
Commissioner, supra, in deciding whether to vacate a settlement
agreement because the agreements led to the cancellation of
imminent trial dates.1 Dorchester Indus., Inc. v. Commissioner,
supra at 336. Further, in each case, the parties had either
filed a stipulation of settled issues with the Court or notified
the Court that an agreement had been reached. Id. at 327; Stamm
Intl. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 317; Adams v. Commissioner,
supra at 367.
We find those cases distinguishable from the instant case
because: (1) The parties did not reach a meeting of minds,
execute any settlement agreement, notify the Court that a
settlement had been reached, or file a stipulation of settled
issues with the Court; (2) the Court did not cancel or delay the
1 The “stringent standards” were that the moving party must
satisfy standards similar to those applicable in vacating a
judgment entered into by consent; i.e., the judgment will be
upheld unless there is a showing of a lack of formal consent,
fraud, mistake, or some similar ground. Dorchester Indus., Inc.
v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 320, 335 (1997), affd. 208 F.3d 205 (3d
Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011