- 11 -
The above discussion illustrates the heart of the problem
presented by respondent’s motion. At the present time, this case
is fully stipulated under Rule 122. If respondent’s motion were
granted, this Court’s March 6, 2006, order directing that this
case proceed as a fully stipulated case would have to be vacated,
a period for discovery related to the disputed stipulations would
have to be set, and a trial, in all likelihood, would have to be
held to develop the facts regarding whether the TMP had the
authority, on the date he executed the stipulation of settlement,
to bind all of Greenwich’s partners to the Greenwich settlement.
Respondent has not requested that the Court’s March 6, 2006,
order be vacated. However, petitioners dispute respondent’s
factual allegations in support of his motion, and, as a matter of
fundamental fairness, petitioners would be entitled to a trial.
By submitting this case fully stipulated pursuant to Rule
122, the parties waived their respective rights to introduce
evidence at trial. Granting respondent relief from the disputed
stipulations would undoubtedly prejudice petitioners, because
petitioners can no longer introduce evidence supporting those
stipulations absent an order vacating our March 6, 2006, order
and setting this case for trial. See Korangy v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1989-2, affd. 893 F.2d 69 (4th Cir. 1990).
If we grant respondent’s motion, we would be compelled to
set this case for trial, and the parties would have to expend
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011