- 7 -
The evidence herein is conflicting as to ownership of the
Michigan property, and petitioner never provided to respondent’s
Appeals Office an adequate explanation as to why, in the 2001
divorce proceeding, petitioner claimed and was awarded an
interest in the Michigan property with a stated value of $25,000.
In spite of the 1992 sale of the Michigan property to a relative,
clearly petitioner must have retained some interest therein
through the time of her 2001 divorce proceeding. Petitioner
failed to explain to respondent’s Appeals officer what happened
to this interest. Further, the 2004 sale of the Michigan
property to a third party without any acknowledgment, in the
related closing documents, of petitioner’s interest therein does
not explain adequately what happened to petitioner’s $25,000
interest.
At a May 7, 2007, hearing in this case, petitioner’s counsel
acknowledged that petitioner’s current financial condition has
improved significantly, but petitioner’s counsel declined on
petitioner’s behalf to have this matter remanded to respondent’s
Appeals Office for consideration of petitioner’s OIC in light of
petitioner’s current financial condition.
On the basis of the inconsistent and inconclusive evidence
presented, respondent’s Appeals officer properly concluded that
the $25,000 that was awarded to petitioner in the 2001 divorce
proceeding relating to the Michigan property constituted a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008