Court of Appeals of New York.Michael S. GRUEN, Respondent,v.Kemija GRUEN, Appellant.Son brought action seeking declaration that he was righful owner of a painting in hisstepmother's possession. Son alleged that his deceased father made a valid gift of the painting tohim while reserving a life estate. The Supreme Court, Kings County, Levine, J., entered judgmentin favor of stepmother, and son appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 104 A.D.2d171, 488 N.Y.S.2d 401,ﾧreversed, and stepmother appealed. The Court of Appeals, Simons, J.,held that: (1) a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel may be made where donor reserves a life estate inchattel and donee never has physical possession of it before donor's death; (2) evidenceestablished that father intended to transfer ownership of painting to son while retaining a lifeestate in it; and (3) letters from father to son referring to gift were sufficient to satisfy deliveryrequirement.Affirmed.West HeadnotesﾧGifts 191 11191ﾧGifts191IﾧInter Vivos191k11ﾧk. Time of Taking Effect. Most Cited CasesﾧGifts 191 18(1)191ﾧGifts191IﾧInter Vivos191k17ﾧDelivery191k18ﾧNecessity191k18(1)ﾧk. In General. Most Cited CasesﾧA valid inter vivos gift of a chattel may be made where the donor has reserved a life estatein the chattel and donee never has physical possession of it before donor's death.ﾧGifts 191 4191ﾧGifts191IﾧInter Vivos191k4ﾧk. Requisites in General. Most Cited Casesﾧ
To make a valid inter vivos gift there must exist: intent on part of donor to make a presenttransfer; delivery of the gift, either actual or constructive to donee; and acceptance by donee.
- Spring '17
- Dr. Zhang
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, inter vivos, donees