- 23 -
Keil for any settlement and that she was the spokesperson for
petitioners.
We conclude on the basis of documentary evidence and the
testimony of petitioners and Tan, witnesses whom we find to be
more reliable than Montgomery, that at no time did either
petitioner, by word or deed, authorize Montgomery to agree to
either of the settlements. Because we find that Montgomery acted
without authority when he agreed to those settlements, and we do
not find that petitioners ratified that action after the fact, we
shall vacate the stipulated decision and set aside the related
stipulations of settlement.9
We have considered all arguments made in this case and have
rejected those arguments not discussed herein as without merit.
Accordingly,
An appropriate order will
be issued.
9 We also note our disagreement with respondent’s argument
that petitioners cannot prevail as to their motion because they
have not proven that vacating the decision will result in a
lesser liability to them. Suffice it to say that our conclusion
that Montgomery was unauthorized to agree to the settlements on
behalf of petitioners is sufficient under the facts herein to
vacate the stipulated decision. See United States v. Beebe,
180 U.S. 343, 352 (1901).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Last modified: May 25, 2011