- 3 -
By notice served May 11, 2005, this case was set for trial
in Knoxville, Tennessee, on October 17, 2005. On July 19, 2005,
respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Memorandum
in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Attached to the
memorandum were records of GMAC concerning petitioner’s account
with GMAC. Those records of GMAC include correspondence sent to
GMAC by petitioner in response to GMAC’s demand on him dated
December 21, 2001. For example, by document dated February 12,
2002, petitioner made a “good faith Offer to pay off in full the
alleged debt to GMAC.” Petitioner further demanded
“verification” of the debt and contended that the debt would be
discharged if GMAC did not comply with petitioner’s demands. In
a document dated April 1, 2002, petitioner claimed that, by
reason of GMAC’s alleged default, petitioner’s debt “is now fully
discharged and that you will not make any credit reporting that
adversely affects me without incurring a major commercial
liability.”
In respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment, respondent
asserts:
8. The exhibits to the respondent’s memorandum of
law show plainly that the petitioner, in his
correspondence with GMAC, has taken the position that
the debt was cancelled. There is no dispute as to the
fact that GMAC cancelled a debt in 2002 and the
petitioner has failed to raise any exceptions to the
taxability of the cancelled debt.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011