-26-
custom house from petitioner and Ms. Davis for $1,500,000. Even
if we were to accept petitioner’s testimony about Mona Builders’
alleged financial condition, the argument that petitioner ad-
vances based on such testimony assumes that Mona Builders’
alleged financial condition requires the conclusion that peti-
tioner did not have a reasonable prospect of recovery of the
alleged custom house theft loss. That Mona Builders may have had
only $75,000 in assets and/or been thinly capitalized does not
require the conclusion that petitioner did not have a reasonable
prospect of recovery of the alleged custom house theft loss.
Assuming arguendo that we were to accept petitioner’s
testimony regarding Mona Builders’ alleged financial condition,
on the record before us, we find that petitioner did not carry
his burden of establishing that at the end of 2000 he did not
have a reasonable prospect of recovery of the alleged custom
house theft loss (or any portion thereof, including the alleged
brick theft and the alleged humidifier theft) by, for example,
withholding future payments to Mona Builders under article
seventeen of the custom house contract, requiring Mona Builders
to correct its work under article twenty-three of that contract,
or terminating the custom house contract under article twenty-
five and suing Mona Builders for breach of contract. On that
record, we further find that petitioner did not carry his burden
of establishing that at the end of 2000 he did not have a reason-
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