Contents 1 I. Basic Concepts 6
II. Gratuitous Transfer of Ownership (Gifts, Wills, and Will Substitutes)
Download 404.52 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- In Re Cohn
- Newman v. Bost
- Gruen v. Gruen
II. Gratuitous Transfer of Ownership (Gifts, Wills, and Will Substitutes)A. GiftsA gift is a voluntary transfer of property for no consideration. To accomplish a gift of personal property the donor must intend to make a gift, the property must be delivered to the donee (the recipient of the gift) and the donee must accept the property. Gifts are commonly divided into (1) Intervivos (during life made with no knowledge or threat of impending death) and (2) Gifts causa mortis (in imminent contemplation of death) Exception to the law of wills idea is that you can’t get to a lawyer Not allowed in every state Gifts are irrevocable. However, gifts causa mortis are revocable if you recover from the threat of death that motivated the gift. Courts view causa mortis gifts with great skepticism since the donor is dead and the contemplated gift is a substitute for a will (which is much preferred form of transfer of private property). Elements of gift: Intent: For a gift to occur, the donor must intend to transfer title. Merely intending to transfer possession is not enough. Delivery: The subject of the gift must be delivered to the recipient in order for the gift to be complete. The best form of delivery is actual physical possession, but this is not always required. When physical delivery is impractical or impossible, symbolic or constructive delivery would suffice. Delivery makes the abstraction of making a gift a reality to the donor and is objective evidence of intent, it also is objective evidence of acceptance. Delivery must be as perfect as the nature of the property and the circumstances surrounding the parties reasonable permit (Gruen) Container Cases: When keys are delivered to a container, goods expected to be found within the furniture are also presumed to be gifted. Ex: Newman -- life insurance policy is NOT expected to be in a bureau (which is for linens, china, etc.) Acceptance: A gift is not complete until it has been accepted by the donee. Delivery triggers a presumption of a completed gift, which presumption can be rebutted by the donee’s rejection of the gift. The presumption of acceptance is strongest when the gift benefits the donee and virtually non-existent when the gift is (rarely) of no benefit. A donee’s delay in rejecting known unwanted gifts also endangers the donee’s ability to claim that there was no acceptance. In Re CohnNY 1919 (S-2 p. 1) Facts: Leopold Cohn, before he died, wrote a paper to his wife expressly giving her 500 shares of stock for her birthday. The paper was signed and handed to his wife in front of their family. Leopold said he couldn’t physically deliver the stock on that day because it was in a bank deposit box in the name of his company. He promised to deliver them when they were available. Yet, over the next week until his death, he kept exerting dominion over the shares. Held: The delivery necessary to consummate a gift must be as perfect as the nature of the property and circumstances and surroundings of the parties reasonably permit. The gift of shares is valid even though they weren’t personally delivered and he used them for the week until he died. The letter was itself a symbol of the gift. It was not a future gift, it was a present gift. Newman v. BostNC 1898 (p. 167) Facts: On his deathbed, Jack gives to Julia all the keys to the household furniture, saying that he intends for her to have everything in the house. Held: Delivery of the keys constitutes constructive delivery of the furniture, because it is impractical to make physical delivery under the circumstances. But delivery of the keys does not constitute constructive delivery of a life insurance policy locked in a bureau drawer, because it was not impractical to deliver the tangible evidence of life insurance right--the policy itself. Cases like these raise the question of whether delivery is an independent element or whether it is a double-check on donative intent. Gruen v. GruenNY 1986 (p. 174): Present gift of future interest while retaining life estate. Facts- Gruen wrote a letter to his son (an undergraduate at Harvard) telling him that for his twenty-first birthday he was giving his son a valuable Klimt painting that was displayed in Gruen’s home, but that he wished to retain possession for the remainder of his life. Held: The letter constituted a complete and valid gift to Gruen’s son of a remainder interest in the painting-- a property right that would automatically become possessory upon the elder Gruen’s death. Father Gruen retained a life estate in the painting. The elder Gruen manifested his donative intent at the time of the gift because the remainder interest was a presently existing property right even though not one that entitled the 21yr old to immediate possession. The letter was sufficient to constitute delivery because it would be “illogical to require the donor to part with possession of the painting when that is what he intends to retain.” Acceptance was evident by the younger Gruen talking about it with his friends, and retaining the symbolic letter for 17 years until his father’s death. Comment: You can make an inter vivos gift of one stick in the bundle of property rights... but once you do, you cannot take it back. Directory: blsa -> files files -> Legislation and regulation files -> Exam Guide 1 I. Right to Exclude v. Rights of Access 3 files -> Corrective Justice "Making the victim whole," files -> Jurisdiction: a court’s power to decide a case or enter a decree. Types of Jurisdiction: Subject Matter Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought blsa -> We impose negligence when there is a precaution we want people to take blsa -> Contracts Outline Download 404.52 Kb. Share with your friends:
|