- 28 -
respondent has offered no evidence to prove a contemporaneous
agreement requiring the distributions made, as opposed to an
independent subsequent decision by Stranco to make the same
outlay. According to the estate:
Even if decisions to make distributions were made based
on “sympathy for poor old dad,” i.e., “Oops,
Mr. Strangi imprudently put too much money into SFLP
and we need to give some back” that would not meet the
criteria set by judicial precedent for determining the
existence of a retained expectation of possession of
[sic] enjoyment: which is that there must have been an
implied agreement that was contemporaneous with the
transfer of the property at issue, not a subsequent
agreement or act. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]
We are persuaded that the evidence and circumstances detailed
above render such a contemporaneous agreement more likely than
not.
The second point mentioned stems from the estate’s view that
pro rata distributions were made not with respect to the
transferred property, in which decedent possessed no legal
interest under the Texas Revised Limited Partnership Act (TRLPA),
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132a-1, sec. 7.01 (Vernon Supp.
2003), but with respect to his partnership interest. Yet this
argument relies on paper title to the exclusion of the
practicalities that are the focus of section 2036(a)(1). The
property contributed by decedent was the source of the payments
made. Furthermore, the record suggests that the impetus
underlying a number of significant SFLP disbursements was needs
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011