- 26 -
reflected an effort simply to raise enough money to get Marilou
off their backs, to get Marilou partially paid off amounts due
her under the 1994 divorce decree, to avoid Richard’s ending up
in jail, and to keep the bulk of the family homestead within the
family, and that there was no intent to defraud respondent.
We are not persuaded. It is clear that Marilou had no
desire to retain an ownership interest in the farm acreage or in
the residence acreage, and it is clear that Marilou was putting
significant pressure on Richard to sell the properties, including
her interests therein. That background explains the fact of the
sale of the farm acreage and particularly the sale of Marilou’s
interest therein, but it does not explain the manner by which
Richard’s and Marilou’s interests in the farm acreage were
transferred or the amount of consideration received therefor, nor
does it explain why Richard transferred his interest in the
residence acreage for no consideration.
The evidence establishes that Richard’s transfers to his
daughters of his one-half interests in the farm acreage, the
residence acreage, and the 20-acre carve out were made to place
the properties beyond the reach of respondent’s collection
authority by removing Richard’s name therefrom, while at the same
time keeping the property within the family.
Summarized below are our conclusions, as of September of
1998, as to the fair market value of Richard’s one-half interests
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011