- 57 -
assumed some responsibility for the delay, the documents upon
which petitioner relies are extremely vague regarding TCO’s
alleged inaction. Petitioner did not present any testimony from
TCO employees to prove when and for how long the delay occurred
or to show exactly how TCO was at fault.
It is entirely possible that any delay on the part of TCO
occurred well after decedent’s death or that the delay was also
attributable to decedent’s or Ms. Powell’s deliberate inattention
to the technicalities of title. TCO had clearly outlined what
steps needed to be taken to transfer Marital Fund stocks to GFLP
months before decedent’s death. Nevertheless, Ms. Powell did not
sign the necessary stock powers when she delivered the stock
certificates to TCO, and her only explanation for the failure--
that she thought TCO would assume all responsibility to transfer
title to the stock--is not credible.47
The record overwhelmingly establishes that decedent or Ms.
Powell on decedent’s behalf continued to exercise ownership,
dominion, and control over Marital Fund assets from January 8,
1997, when decedent withdrew the Marital Fund assets from the
47TCO had not yet entered into the agency agreement with
GFLP when Ms. Powell delivered the stock certificates to TCO.
And, although the record shows that Ms. Powell eventually signed
stock powers on behalf of decedent to transfer the stocks to
GFLP, the record does not reveal when she did so. TCO was still
asking Ms. Powell to sign documents to transfer Marital Fund
assets to GFLP as recently as May 2000, and Ms. Powell was still
completing the transfer of other property to GFLP in August 2000.
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007