- 11 -
were entered into after careful negotiations or through
inadvertence or honest lack of ability. Courts are unlikely to
grant relief from stipulations arrived at through bargaining and
“considerable negotiation,” Associated Beverages, 287 F.2d at
263, or stipulations which were “negotiated extensively,” Markin,
T.C. Memo. 1989-665. But when a party has stipulated
inadvertently and honestly, courts may justifiably grant him
relief. See, e.g., United States v. Montgomery, 620 F.2d 753,
757 (10th Cir. 1980); Jenkins, T.C. Memo. 1988-326.
This case--at least before counsel stepped in to help
Lovenguth--falls more on the side of Jenkins and Montgomery.
Lovenguth was not represented when the stipulations were being
drafted; the stipulations themselves were not so much negotiated
as given to him to sign; and all this happened well before
posttrial briefing or appeal.
The Commissioner argues that Lovenguth should have to show
that a failure to modify the stipulations would prejudice him.
See Adams v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 359, 375 (1985). The
Commissioner reasons that deciding the case with the current
stipulations would not prejudice Lovenguth because he has offered
no new evidence that would change the result of the case and all
of the pertinent facts are included in the current stipulation.
These arguments fail to persuade us.
Consider the argument that Lovenguth will not be prejudiced
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007