- 20 -
Petitioner has filed affidavits averring that her net worth was
less than $2 million at the time her amended petitions were filed
as well as when the original petitions were filed. We find
petitioner’s submissions to be credible, and respondent has
offered no evidence to contradict petitioner’s statements.
Accordingly, we are satisfied that petitioner meets the net worth
requirements.
D. Whether Petitioner Protracted the Proceedings
Respondent argues that petitioner is not entitled to an
award of litigation costs because she unreasonably protracted the
proceedings. Sec. 7430(b)(3) (“No award for reasonable * * *
costs may be made * * * with respect to any portion of the * * *
court proceeding during which the prevailing party has
unreasonably protracted such proceeding.”). Respondent faults
petitioner for not complying with a summons originally dated
October 5, 1987. Respondent attempted to resurrect the summons
in January 2006, in a letter to petitioner.
According to respondent’s records, the summons issued to
petitioner was served by leaving a copy at the abode of Mr.
Lippitz. The other evidence before the Court suggests that
before 2003, petitioner was not in a position to play an active
role in responding to the summons in question. Accordingly, we
cannot find fault in petitioner’s failure to comply with the 20
year old summons where there is no evidence that petitioner even
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007