- 25 -
payments under the agreement as representing a unitary and
unallocated resolution of all claims raised in the lawsuit. On
the other hand, when Mr. Davenport and Ms. Weiss-Davenport
explained in detail the reasoning underlying the annuity
provisions, every remark connects these payments to decedent’s
“benefit”, “absolute protection”, “care”, “share”, “safety”, what
“she needed”. Hence, as alluded to previously, the testimony
upon which the estate places such great reliance in fact cuts
both ways. Overall and at first blush, it patently corroborates
that decedent at a minimum possessed some beneficial interest in
the annuities, as required for inclusion under section 2033.
However, when scrutinized closely, the more detailed, heartfelt,
and therefore credible testimony goes even further, weighing
heavily towards a beneficial interest held by decedent alone.
Not once did either of decedent’s parents reference any
manner in which they personally and individually would benefit
from the annuity payments under paragraph 2.2 of the settlement
agreement. Moreover, in discussing paragraph 3.0, they both
chose to emphasize how they felt bound thereby from effecting any
change in or control over the payment streams. Only in response
to further questions directed to paragraph 4.0 did decedent’s
parents make comments that reverted to the idea of some degree of
control over the annuities. As previously mentioned, however,
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011