DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Kanagaroo Kort
HTML https://kangarookort.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Property
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25--------------------------------------------------
Gruen v. Gruen
By: SunsetSailor Date: January 27, 2011, 10:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FACTS: The plaintiff alleges that he is the rightful owner of a
painting, which his father, who is now deceased, gave to him.
He asserts that his father gave the painting to him for his 21st
birthday in 1963. His father retained possession of the
painting until he died in 1980, and the plaintiff’s stepmother
(defendant) refused to give the painting to the plaintiff. The
defendant argues that the purported gift was a testamentary in
nature and invalid insofar as the formalities of a will were not
met. On April , 1963, the plaintiff’s father wrote him a letter
stating that he was giving him the Klint painting for his
birthday but that he wished to retain the possession of it for
his lifetime. On May 22, 1963, the plaintiff received two more
letters stating the father’s wish that the first letter from
April 1, be destroyed because his attorney and accountant
insisted on having copies of all letters. The third letter
stated that the plaintiff’s father wished to give the oil
painting to the plaintiff as a present. The plaintiff never
took possession of the painting and following his father’s
death, he requested possession of it. When the defendant
refused, he commenced this action.
* Son’s Theory He is the legal owner b/c of the
Intervivus gift from her father
* StepMom’s TheoryNo gift b/c it doesn’t meet the
requirements of a gift & that this particular painting cant be a
gift b/c it doesn’t meet the formalities of the will so it is an
invalid testamentary transfer.
Time 1: Gruen Sr. makes his will and says that painting goes to
wife
Time 2: Gift of the painting to his son
Time 3: Gruen Sr. dies
SON GETS PAINTING B/C YOU CAN’T PASS A BETTER TITLE THEN YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE
* Will is a promise to make a series of gifts once Gruen
died, but he didn’t own it at the time of his death (son owned
it)Sr. had no property interest in the painting when he
died b/c he already gave it to his son
* Gruen Sr. “I promise to give you this painting when I
die…” **If I own it when I die
PROCEDURAL FACTS:
* 7 day non-jury trial: The plaintiff failed to establish
any of the elements of an inter vivos gift and that in any event
an attempt by a donor to retain a present possessory life estate
in a chattel invalidated a purported gift of it
* Appellate Division: Reversed and remitted the matter for a
determination of value.
* Court of Appeals: Affirm, awarding the plaintiff
$2,500,000 in damages representing the value of the painting.
ISSUE: Whether a valid inter vivos gift of chattel may be made
where the donor reserved a life estate for the chattel and donee
never has had physical possession of it.
RULES:
* To make a valid inter vivos gift there must exist:
1. The intent on the part of the donor to make a
present transfer
2. Delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive
to the donee
3. Acceptance by the donee
ANALYSIS:
o Donative Intent3rd letter is not donative
intent (b/c Sr. says “I wish to give you,” which is a promise to
make a gift in the future. 2nd letter shows it (b/c Sr. says “I
made a gift…”)…combination of letter 2 & letter 3, with
reference to letter 1 are needed to prove donative intent
o Delivery (In this case, symbolic delivery is
allowed)…manual delivery is not practical given the nature of
the property, and the father would give the painting to his son
only to have the son give the painting back to the father b/c he
wanted to keep it…constructive delivery has to afford access to
the object of the gift, and in this case, the letter can’t be
considered constructive.
o Acceptance  Plaintiff has talked to his
friends ad associates about the painting and even showed them
the letters
The evidence is conclusive that the plaintiff’s father
intended to transfer ownership of the painting to the plaintiff
in 1963, but retained a life estate in it. The three letters
sent to the plaintiff by his father establish this intent. The
donee received the title or right of ownership to the property
immediately upon the making of the gift, but possession of it
was postponed until some future time. The delivery of the
plaintiff’s father’s letters serve as instruments of gift. It
would have been irrational for the plaintiff’s father to
manually deliver the painting to him and then have his son
return the painting until his father died. The plaintiff
presented proof of his acceptance of a remainder interest in the
Klint painting by evidence that he made several statements
acknowledging the gift to his friends and associates, even
showing them his father’s letters. He also kept the letters for
over 17 years until his father’s death to verify the gift. The
defendant relied only on affidavits filed by the plaintiff in a
matrimonial action where the plaintiff failed to list her
husband’s interest in the painting as an asset. These
affidavits were made over 10 years after acceptance was
complete. The interpretation of the affidavit was too
speculative to support a finding of rejection and overcome the
substantial showing of acceptance by the plaintiff. There was
NO testamentary transfer b/c the father would have had to say
that he was planning on giving the son his painting in his will.
- Testamentary = related to a will
- Life Estate = means present possession plus title
behind that possession… an
estate whose duration is limited to the life of the
person holding it
 A life estate, is a term used in common law to
describe the ownership of land for the duration of a person's
life. In legal terms it is an estate in real property that ends
at death.
CONSLUSION: The judgment appealed from and the order of
the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A PRESENT TRANSFER OF A FURTURE
INTEREST
Title Transfer By Gift:
Two Special Issues:
1. Donor By agentNo gift if it is still in the
hands of the agent of the donor….as soon as the object is in the
hands of the agent of the donee, the gift has been made
# GCMWhile the gift is in the
hands of the donor’s agent, the donor dies…if the gift has not
been transferred to the donee or the donee’s agent before he
dies, the gift fails
(2) Conditional Gift
# The Oral Condition
1. Majority PositionValid
Gift (manual delivery with oral condition), Invalid Condition,
No Intent (favors and promotes effective gifts)
2. Minority 1 No Valid gift,
No Valid Condition
3. Minority 2 Valid gift,
Valid condition
# Death as a Condition
1. Donor: “I want the donee to have
the object when I die”
2. Old BeliefBasically a will
3. New Belief This is a
condition and in certain circumstances we accept conditions, so
death should be considered a condition
*****************************************************