Garrison v. Union Trust Co.
164 Mich. 345 · Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
Facts
On February 6, 1905, James H. Garrison and his wife visited Kittie Levering, Garrison's aunt, at her home in Detroit for a birthday dinner. During the dinner, Mrs. Levering offered Garrison a diamond ring, stating, "I will give you this ring, Jim." Garrison tried it on, thanked her, and then Mrs. Levering said, "Jim let me take it and wear it till I am through with it, but the ring is yours." Garrison handed the ring back to her. Mrs. Levering continued to wear the ring and referred to it as "Jim's ring" on multiple subsequent occasions until her death. After her death, the special administrator of her estate contested Garrison's claim of ownership.
Procedural history
The plaintiff, James H. Garrison, commenced an action of replevin against the defendant, the special administrator of Kittie Levering's estate, to recover possession of a diamond ring. The issue of title was determined by a jury in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to this court, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant.
Issue
Did the trial court err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, given that the donor retained possession of the diamond ring until her death, thereby questioning the validity of the gift inter vivos?
Holding
No, the trial court did not err. The judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, as there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find a valid gift inter vivos.
Rule
To constitute a valid gift inter vivos, there must be a gratuitous and absolute transfer of property from the donor to the donee, taking effect immediately, and fully executed by delivery and acceptance. Subsequent possession by the donor after a completed gift does not necessarily invalidate the gift or conclusively prove that there was no delivery or passage of dominion. While a donor's retention of custody calls for explanation, it does not create a conclusive presumption against a valid gift. Declarations and admissions of the donor, though not sufficient alone, are admissible as corroborative evidence of a gift.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.