Kenneth J. Barela - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          year, but not necessarily for 1999.  Respondent’s statement                 
          reflects that no assent was intended.  In these circumstances,              
          without some affirmative assent by respondent, there could be no            
          meeting of the minds.  A contract was not created, and thus a               
          settlement agreement was not reached.                                       
               The parties agreed to the stipulated decision for 1998.                
          Conspicuously absent from the decision documents was any express            
          agreement or closing agreement regarding the allowance of the               
          $5,433 for 1999.  The parties' postnegotiation exchange of                  
          writings also illustrates that a meeting of the minds had not               
          occurred between the parties.  Mr. Koll, on behalf of petitioner,           
          faxed a letter to respondent’s counsel in an attempt to document            
          the agreement that he believed existed.  Specifically, the letter           
          stated, in pertinent part, that “The Schedule C losses of Katy’s            
          Furniture of $5,433 will be disallowed in 1998 but this amount              
          will be allowed in 1999 as a deduction”.  Mr. Koll executed this            
          document on May 1, 2002, and faxed it to respondent’s counsel the           
          morning of May 2, 2002, but respondent’s counsel was not aware of           
          Mr. Koll’s fax when the decision document was filed with the                
          Court during the morning of May 2, 2002.7                                   
               Also on May 2, 2002, after the decision document had been              
          filed and respondent’s counsel had become aware of Mr. Koll’s               


               7 The decision document was not entered by this Court until            
          May 3, 2002.                                                                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011