Laserfiche WebLink
Indeed, it was important to Petitioner's case to have Mr. Tucker seated at Respondent's <br /> table during. trial. This is because Mr. Tucker's credibility was questionable at best. Moreover, <br /> Petitioner played for the jury a videotape of Mr. Tucker's deposition, during which he admitted <br /> that he had taken no affirmative steps to develop the property prior to the valuation date of <br /> December 17, 2012. Even more, Mr. Tucker appeared combative, abrasive, evasive and overall <br /> unlikeable throughout the entire videotaped deposition. By way of example, Mr. Tucker refused <br /> to answer even the most basic of background questions that is asked of any party during any <br /> deposition, i.e. where do you live? Mr. Tucker refused to indicate where he lived and appeared <br /> visibly upset by this simple question. By contrast, Ms. Tucker, who became trustee just days <br /> before trial, while unknowledgeable about the efforts that had been taken to develop the land, <br /> came across as a sympathetic figure who was merely looking out for the best interests of the <br /> trust's beneficiaries. Trial T. 250. Significantly, Ms. Tucker testified that the beneficiaries of <br /> the underwater property trust were her children. Trial T. 769. Even more significant, Ms. <br /> Tucker testified that any money given to the trust beneficiaries would be used to fund the trust <br /> beneficiaries' college fund. Trial T. 769. This testimony was entirely prejudicial to the <br /> Petitioner and underscored the trial-by-ambush tactics employed by Respondent. Conversely, <br /> Mr. Tucker, throughout his deposition never stated that the underwater property was for the <br /> benefit of his children's college fund. When compared to her predecessor Mr. Tucker, Ms. <br /> Tucker was a sympathetic Respondent in the eyes of the jury. Lastly, without a request made by <br /> either party, the court unilaterally decided to change the style of the case on the verdict form to <br /> include Ms. Tucker's name. <br /> a In addition, Petitioner was forced to subpoena Mr.Tucker to appear at trial. On May 25,2015,Respondent filed a <br /> Motion to Quash Subpoena for Trial: Despite the fact that the court noted that Petitioner"had every right to call Mr. <br /> Tucker"as a witness at trial,Mr.Tucker did not appear for trial, in violation of the subpoena. <br /> 17 <br />