Foster v. Reiss case brief
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
112 A.2d
553
CASE SYNOPSIS: Plaintiffs appealed a
judgment in defendant's favor in an action to recover items taken
pursuant to an alleged gift causa mortis, in the Appellate Division
of the Superior Court (New Jersey).
FACTS: Defendant, the deceased's husband, claimed he was entitled to cash, savings account, and a building and loan book, through a gift causa mortis by his wife. The deceased had written a note which indicated her intent for him to have these items and told him where they could be found in their home. Plaintiff trustees of the estate objected, claiming a valid gift causa mortis had not taken place.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that gifts causa mortis are not favored. The court determined a gift causa mortis required donative intent, which the letter indicated, and delivery. The court found the two requirements are separate and distinct and the informal letter did not constitute both. The court found no delivery of the intended gifts sufficient to constitute complete divesting of the deceased's control.
HOLDING:
The court determined there was no affirmative action on the deceased's part to satisfy the delivery requirement.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed judgment which awarded items to defendant because there was no valid gift causa mortis when no delivery of the items had taken place.
FACTS: Defendant, the deceased's husband, claimed he was entitled to cash, savings account, and a building and loan book, through a gift causa mortis by his wife. The deceased had written a note which indicated her intent for him to have these items and told him where they could be found in their home. Plaintiff trustees of the estate objected, claiming a valid gift causa mortis had not taken place.
ANALYSIS:
The court found that gifts causa mortis are not favored. The court determined a gift causa mortis required donative intent, which the letter indicated, and delivery. The court found the two requirements are separate and distinct and the informal letter did not constitute both. The court found no delivery of the intended gifts sufficient to constitute complete divesting of the deceased's control.
HOLDING:
The court determined there was no affirmative action on the deceased's part to satisfy the delivery requirement.
CONCLUSION: The court reversed judgment which awarded items to defendant because there was no valid gift causa mortis when no delivery of the items had taken place.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
-->
No comments:
Post a Comment