- 15 -
dent’s response), respondent alleges that petitioner was able to
withdraw during 2003 the 2003 interest on petitioner’s Prudential
policy dividend accumulations and the 2003 interest on peti-
tioner’s USAA policy dividend accumulations without surrendering
the policies in question. However, respondent maintains in that
response that, in order to establish that allegation, “testimony
from a representative of the insurance companies is necessary”.
Thus, according to respondent, a genuine issue of material fact
exists “concerning whether the petitioner could have withdrawn
the interest in 2003, without surrendering the life insurance
policies.”
In petitioner’s reply to respondent’s response (petitioner’s
reply), petitioner modifies her position in petitioner’s motion
that she was required to surrender the policies in question in
order to have withdrawn during 2003 the 2003 interest on peti-
tioner’s Prudential policy dividend accumulations and the 2003
interest on the USAA policy dividend accumulations. In peti-
tioner’s reply, petitioner acknowledges that surrendering those
policies was not the only way for her to have been able to make
such withdrawals of such interest. In that reply, petitioner
concedes that “there are provisions under which dividends can be
withdraw[n] with the associated interest.” However, according to
petitioner,
While dividends can be withdrawn with the associated
interest, the reverse is not true. Interest cannot be
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007