Brind v. International Trust Co.
66 Colo. 60 (1919)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a gift causa mortis to be valid, the donor must die of the specific illness or peril contemplated at the time the gift was made; recovery from that specific peril, even if the donor subsequently dies from their underlying ailment, operates as a revocation of the gift.
Facts:
- Maria E. Brind, who was suffering from a tumor, was scheduled to undergo a serious surgical operation.
- On August 18, 1914, Brind delivered a box of jewelry to the International Trust Company with a written instrument.
- The instrument stated the jewelry was a gift causa mortis to be delivered to named individuals "in the event of my death as a result of said surgical operation."
- The instrument further directed that if Brind did "not die from said operation," the jewelry was to be returned to her.
- During the procedure, surgeons made an exploratory incision but determined the full operation would be fatal, so they closed the wound without removing the tumor.
- Brind fully recovered from the incision, left the hospital, and resumed some normal activities.
- After being informed by her attorney that the gift's validity was questionable due to her recovery, Brind said she would think about it but took no further action to reaffirm the gift.
- On November 8, 1914, approximately three months after the initial procedure, Brind died from the tumor, the original ailment.
Procedural Posture:
- J. Fritz Brind, as administrator of Maria E. Brind's estate, filed a replevin action in the trial court against the International Trust Company to recover certain jewelry.
- Mrs. U.S. Hollister and other intended recipients of the jewelry intervened in the action, claiming ownership.
- The trial court overruled the plaintiff's demurrers to the defendant's and intervenors' filings.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the intervenors.
- The plaintiff's motion for a directed verdict was denied by the trial court.
- Following the verdict, the plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and the trial court entered judgment for the intervenors.
- The plaintiff, J. Fritz Brind, appealed the judgment to the reviewing 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 recovery from a specific surgical operation, which was the expressed peril motivating a gift causa mortis, invalidate the gift if the donor later dies from the underlying illness for which the surgery was intended?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, J.
Yes, a donor's recovery from the specific peril that motivated a gift causa mortis invalidates the gift. A valid gift causa mortis requires that the donor die of the illness or peril which they feared or contemplated when making the gift. In this case, the written instrument explicitly conditioned the gift on Mrs. Brind's death "as a result of said surgical operation." The evidence is undisputed that she recovered from the minor incision that was performed and did not die from the operation; rather, she died from her underlying malady. Because the specific peril that she feared—death from the operation—did not occur, an essential element of the gift failed, and the gift was revoked. Her subsequent statements about wanting the intervenors to have the jewelry did not serve as a reaffirmation, as she was aware of the gift's likely invalidity and consciously chose not to take the necessary steps to make a new gift.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the elements of a gift causa mortis, emphasizing that the cause of death must match the specific peril contemplated by the donor. By focusing on the explicit language of the donor's instrument, the court reinforces that recovery from the specified danger automatically revokes the gift. This precedent cautions against a broad interpretation of the donor's intent and establishes that a general contemplation of death from an illness is not sufficient if the gift is conditioned on a more specific event, like surgery. The ruling solidifies the principle that these gifts are not to be favored or extended by the law and must meet all technical requirements precisely.
