- 32 -
failed to carry their burden of showing, let alone by strong
proof, that the December 2, 1999 transaction was some type of
venture with respect to lot 5 between Mr. O’Malley and Kevin
O’Malley and that, as part of that alleged venture, Kevin O’Mal-
ley lent petitioners $54,400 of the $254,400 F&M Bank 1999 loan.
We have found on the record presented that, at all relevant
times after the December 2, 1999 transaction, (1) Kevin O’Malley
(a) continued to live in the house located on lot 5, (b) ceased
paying rent to petitioners with respect to that lot, and (c) made
payments to F&M Bank with respect to the $254,400 F&M Bank 1999
loan; and (2) petitioners did not make any payments to F&M Bank
with respect to that loan. Moreover, petitioners have failed to
carry their burden of showing, let alone by strong proof, that,
after the December 2, 1999 transaction, petitioners, and not
Kevin O’Malley, (1) were vested with the right of possession with
respect to lot 5 or (2) paid the expenses (e.g., real property
taxes) with respect to that lot.
On the record before us, we find that petitioners have
failed to carry their burden of showing, let alone by strong
proof, that, after the December 2, 1999 transaction, they re-
tained the benefits and burdens of ownership with respect to lot
5.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007