Gruen v. Gruen 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?
68 N.Y.2d 48, 505 N.Y.S.2d
849, 496 N.E.2d 869 (1986)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant
appealed an order from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in
the Second Judicial Department (New York) in which the court entered
judgment in plaintiff's favor on plaintiff's complaint for
declaratory judgment.
FACTS: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a painting gifted to him prior to his father's death. The lower court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor, holding that a valid gift was made. Defendant appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that a valid gift consisted of a donative intent, delivery, and acceptance by the donee. As to donative intent, the appeals court held that a life estate and remainder could be created in a chattel. The court continued and held that whether 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 was the determinative factor. As to delivery and acceptance, the appeals court held that delivery need not be physical and acceptance was presumed where the subject of the gift was valuable.
CONCLUSION: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that plaintiff was the rightful owner of the painting where the evidence established there was a donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.
FACTS: Plaintiff brought suit against defendant seeking a declaration that plaintiff was the owner of a painting gifted to him prior to his father's death. The lower court entered judgment in plaintiff's favor, holding that a valid gift was made. Defendant appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that a valid gift consisted of a donative intent, delivery, and acceptance by the donee. As to donative intent, the appeals court held that a life estate and remainder could be created in a chattel. The court continued and held that whether 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 was the determinative factor. As to delivery and acceptance, the appeals court held that delivery need not be physical and acceptance was presumed where the subject of the gift was valuable.
CONCLUSION: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that plaintiff was the rightful owner of the painting where the evidence established there was a donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.
---
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