Gruen v Gruen Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief...

Description

Gruen v. Gruen Court of Appeals of New York 1986 Proc: Special term court found in favor of Mrs. Gruen because they determined that by retaining a life estate in the painting, Victor invalidated the gift. The Appellate Division found that a gift is valid even if a life estate is retained in the gift, in favor of Michael Gruen, and awarded $2,500,000 in damages. Mrs. Gruen petitioned certiorari to the Court of appeals of New York. Facts: Plaintiff claims that his deceased father gave him a painting, that his stepmother is refusing to give to him. He admits to never having possession to it or trying to gain possession of it, but claims it was a valid gift made in 1963, and his father maintained possession of it because he reserved a life estate for himself. His stepmother claims that the purported gift was testamentary in nature because the formalities were not met due to making a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel and retaining a life estate of it is unallowable. Victor kept the painting in his possession and with him to multiple other residences. He also has letters that show the intent of his father to give the gift. Issue: Whether a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel may be made where the donor has reserved a life estate in the chattel and the done has never taken physical possession of it before the donor’s death? Rule: Valid inter vivos gift: 1) Intent on the part of the donor to make a present transfer 2) Delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive to the done 3) Acceptance by the done 4) The proponent of the gift has the burden of proving each of these elements by clear and convincing evidence Reasoning: Donative Intent In an inter vivos gift the donor must intend to make present transfer of ownership, and not merely a testamentary disposition effective only after death, that must be done in a will. However, there is a distinction between an instance “where the maker intended the [gift] to have no effect until after the maker’s death, or whether he intended it to transfer some present interest.” Additionally, the courts finds it hard to distinguish between the transferring of stocks and bonds to his wife, where he was allowed to reserve remainder interest in, and chattels like the painting he did so with his son. We hold this element to be met as long as the evidence established an intent to make a present and irrevocable transfer of title or the right of ownership, even if their enjoyment of the gift is postponed until a later time.

Delivery

Delivery requirements are inflexible and should be tailored to suit the situation. Although physical delivery of the painting would be the best method, and requirable, if Victor was to be giving all rights of the painting. But he is simply giving title and the right of possession at a later time. Thus, it would make no sense to require him to deliver exactly what he intends to retain. So this works for this case. Acceptance When a gift is of value to the done the law will presume an acceptance on their part. But the plaintiff also brought clear and convincing evidence through talking about it and showing parts of his later to his colleagues. Holding/Judgement: Affirmed w/ costs...