Braun v. Brown
127 A.L.R. 773, 14 Cal. 2d 346, 94 P.2d 348 (1939)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A valid gift causa mortis of inaccessible property, such as the contents of a safe deposit box, is effected by the symbolic delivery of the sole means of access and control, such as the only key, when accompanied by the donor's clear intent to make a present transfer in contemplation of imminent death.
Facts:
- Julius H. Schmidt and Teresa A. Braun had a close, multi-year friendship, during which Schmidt proposed marriage and unsuccessfully attempted to give her large gifts.
- Schmidt kept valuable personal property, including stocks, bonds, and promissory notes, in a bank safe deposit box.
- On January 6, 1937, Schmidt, then 67 years old, suffered a paralytic stroke and became seriously ill.
- During his illness, on January 21, 1937, Schmidt gave Braun the single key to his safe deposit box.
- While handing her the key, Schmidt stated, 'Teresa, every thing in the box belongs to you,' and said to his brother-in-law, 'Bernard, you hear, I want Teresa to have every thing in the box.'
- Schmidt did not instruct Braun to use funds from the box for his medical expenses; instead, he separately gave her a check from another account for that purpose.
- Schmidt was hospitalized on January 26 and died on February 11, 1937, without revoking the gift.
Procedural Posture:
- After Julius H. Schmidt's death, Teresa A. Braun attempted to claim the contents of his safe deposit box, but the bank refused.
- Braun turned the key over to the administrator of Schmidt's estate, who also refused to recognize her claim.
- Braun sued the administrator in a trial court to establish the gift causa mortis and quiet title to the property.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of Braun, confirming the gift.
- The administrator, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a donor's act of handing over the sole key to a safe deposit box during his last illness, accompanied by statements of donative intent, constitute a valid delivery to effectuate a gift causa mortis of the box's contents?
Opinions:
Majority - Pullen, J., pro tem.
Yes. The act of handing over the sole key to a safe deposit box with clear donative intent during a last illness constitutes a valid symbolic delivery for a gift causa mortis. The court found that all elements of a gift causa mortis were met. First, the gift was made during Schmidt's last illness, which creates a legal presumption that it was made in contemplation of death under Civil Code § 1150. The surrounding circumstances, including his stroke, age, and hospitalization, strongly support this. Second, Schmidt's statements ('every thing in the box belongs to you') were words of a present donation, clearly showing his intent to transfer ownership at that moment. Third, because the contents of the box were not capable of manual delivery, the delivery of the key—the sole means of accessing and controlling the property—was sufficient symbolic delivery. The existence of a duplicate key locked inside the box was deemed irrelevant as it was inaccessible without the primary key. Finally, Braun's acceptance of the key completed the gift, and her failure to physically retrieve the contents before Schmidt's death did not invalidate it.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the doctrine of symbolic delivery for gifts causa mortis in California. It clarifies that when property is inaccessible or cannot be physically delivered, transferring the exclusive means of control is a legally sufficient substitute for manual delivery. The decision is significant for estate planning and property law, as it provides a clear example of how a valid 'deathbed gift' of secured assets can be made without formal legal documents. Future cases involving gifts of property in safes, storage units, or other locked containers will look to this precedent to determine if the donor's actions were sufficient to divest themselves of dominion and control.
Unlock the full brief for Braun v. Brown