- 41 -
the improvements to which the bill of sale referred consisted of
both the 1958 school building and the new building that TMC
constructed on KQC’s land with HHS’s grant funds, on the record
before us, we find that petitioners in each of these cases have
failed to carry their burden of establishing that on December 31,
1999 (or at any other time in 1999) KQC made an irrevocable
transfer to TMC of legal title to either such 1958 school build-
ing or such new building. On that record, we further find that
petitioners in each of these cases have failed to carry their
burden of proving that on December 31, 1999 (or at any other time
in 1999) KQC made an irrevocable transfer to TMC of legal title
to KQC’s land or to the improved property on Maple Street.16
The parties agree that we must look to the law of the State
of Ohio (Ohio law) in order to determine whether on December 31,
1999 (or at any other time in 1999) KQC made an irrevocable
15(...continued)
bill of sale for KQC, he was not aware that TMC had constructed a
new building on KQC’s land with HHS’s grant funds.
16Indeed, as petitioners acknowledge, the bill of sale on
which they rely does not even purport to transfer KQC’s land to
TMC. Moreover, we reject petitioners’ suggestion that the
general warranty deed pertaining to the improved property on
Maple Street that Mr. Matamoros prepared for KQC between Feb. 8
and Mar. 13, 2001, and that Mr. Kaplan executed on behalf of KQC
on Mar. 13, 2001, relates back to the bill of sale that Mr.
Kaplan executed on behalf of KQC on Dec. 31, 1999, thereby
supporting petitioners’ position that on that date KQC made an
irrevocable transfer to TMC of legal title to the improved
property on Maple Street or to any portion of such property.
Petitioners do not cite, and we have not found, any authority
supporting such a suggestion.
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011