- 25 -
Q: In fact, you were under a duty for –- Mr. Goldman was
under a duty to pay the full amount of Ida’s expenses,
right, under –- pursuant to Exhibit 11(j) [the decree]?
A: Whatever her own personal assets did not cover, yes.
Similarly, Mr. Goldman’s testimony echoes decedent’s
retained right to all the FLP income. According to his
testimony, money earned from leasing the properties that two of
the three partnerships owned was collected into bank accounts
solely controlled by Mr. Goldman. Ms. Cawley sent Mr. Goldman
accountings “as to what was expended” for decedent’s maintenance
and support on a monthly basis and therein indicated the month’s
support “shortfall”; i.e., the extent to which her income from
other sources was not sufficient to pay her expenses for that
month. Mr. Goldman testified: “It was my responsibility to make
up the shortfall” from the moneys earned by the FLPs. The
partnerships shared equally in these “shortfalls”.26 Mr. Goldman
testified that he had a fiduciary duty to ensure decedent
maintained a “status quo” of support and comfort and that the
decree “indicated to * * * [him] that that was a priority in the
allocation of [partnership] funds.” He had discretionary power
to pay out such sums from the partnerships he deemed necessary
for decedent’s support and maintenance. He testified that after
paying all decedent’s expenses, he paid the excess partnership
26Mr. Goldman sent Mr. Rubin a reimbursement request for
one-third of the monthly “shortfall” which was to come from the
RMA FLP.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011