- 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