- 18 -
On March 16, 2004, the Court ordered Montgomery to file with
the Court a statement as to his understanding of his authority to
settle this case. Montgomery responded that he had been
authorized by Mr. Keil to settle this case in accordance with the
amounts shown in the stipulated decision, that petitioners had
been clients of his for approximately 4 years, and that
petitioners had previously allowed one of them to speak on behalf
of (and bind) both of them. Montgomery also stated that on
December 15, 2003, he had explained the second stipulation of
settled issues to Mr. Keil and recommended its acceptance, Mr.
Keil had authorized Montgomery on behalf of petitioners to accept
the settlements reflected in that stipulation, and Mr. Keil had
informed him that Mr. Keil would obtain Ms. Keil’s acceptance of
the settlements.
OPINION
Petitioners argue that the Court should vacate the
stipulated decision and set aside the related stipulations of
settlement because Montgomery was not authorized to agree to the
settlements on their behalf. Petitioners bear the burden of
proving that Montgomery lacked the requisite settlement
authority. See Dahl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-179, affd.
85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir. 1996). We presume that a duly licensed
attorney appearing in this Court is authorized to act on behalf
of a litigant whom the attorney purports to represent. Id.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011