- 12 -
unless Mr. Keil accepted the settlements. Mr. Keil did not
accept any part of the settlements, and he did not instruct
Montgomery to settle any part of the case on behalf of either
petitioner. Nor did Mr. Keil tell Montgomery that Mr. Keil would
get Ms. Keil to accept the second stipulation of settled issues.
On the morning of December 16, 2003, Montgomery spoke to Tan
briefly and concluded their conversation by stating that he had
to go to court. When this case was called for trial at 10 a.m.,
on December 16, 2003, neither Montgomery nor petitioners were
present. Respondent’s counsel, Karen Nicholson Sommers
(Sommers), appeared on behalf of respondent and informed the
Court that she had spoken to Montgomery that morning. She stated
that Montgomery had told her that he would be transmitting to her
office by facsimile a signed stipulation that reflected their
resolution of all issues in the case. She stated that she had
recently verified that this document was then in her office. She
informed the Court that the parties had settled all issues in the
case but that Montgomery had told her that he would like 30 days
to file the settlement stipulation so that petitioners’
accountant could review the tax computations shown therein.4 The
4 As we understood it then and continue to understand it
today, the accountant’s review related only to the calculation of
petitioners’ tax liability that would be shown in the settlement
stipulation; the accountant’s review was not a contingency to the
settlement of any of the issues underlying that stipulation. To
be sure, the settlement stipulation, set forth infra pp. 16-17,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011