- 24 -
contradictions. The Court therefore is unable to rely on much of
Mr. Greene’s testimony, particularly when it comes to his
management of or control over the stock sales and Valdes & Moreno
account, where some of the most marked discrepancies arise.
Thus, while statements by Mr. Greene might be sufficient to
show that he assisted decedent by researching, tracking, and
making recommendations about the eConnect shares, his comments
fall short of establishing any genuine management and control.
Furthermore, the documentary record supports that any time an
actual sales call or request to transfer funds was made, it was
decedent’s personal action that formally initiated the
transaction. Shared excitement and casual use of plural pronouns
are hardly a substitute for the complete dearth of documentary
evidence to show Mr. Greene making even one order with respect to
the account. Notably, the estate tries to minimize the
significance of decedent’s prompt transfer of the sales receipts
out of the Valdes & Moreno account by claiming that Mr. Greene
“initiated the movement”. Suffice it to say that the attempt,
conclusory, self-serving, and unsupported, fails to blunt one of
the key objective facts in this litigation--that shortly after
the eConnect sales, decedent ordered Valdes & Moreno to transfer
the proceeds to other accounts that the record indicates were in
her name alone.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011