Hocks v. Jeremiah
759 P.2d 312, 92 Or. App. 549 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To constitute a valid inter vivos gift, the donor must transfer possession and relinquish all dominion and control over the property. Placing property into a jointly accessible safe deposit box where the donor retains a key and continues to enjoy the benefits of the property is insufficient to constitute the required delivery.
Facts:
- On December 29, 1980, Robert Hocks physically handed his sister, Joan Jeremiah, four $5,000 bearer bonds, stating they were a gift.
- On the same day, Hocks and Jeremiah jointly rented a safe deposit box, with both signing the signature card and each retaining a key.
- Jeremiah placed the four bonds in the box and told Hocks that he could continue to collect the interest on them.
- In 1981, Hocks informed Jeremiah he was giving her a diamond and had placed it in the box for her.
- Over the next several years, Hocks added 22 more bonds to the box, informing Jeremiah when he did so.
- Hocks exclusively visited the box, paid the rental fees, collected all interest from the bonds, and listed the bonds as his own assets for a loan application in 1983.
- In 1984, at Jeremiah's request, Hocks placed a handwritten note in the box stating, 'Upon my death, the contents of this safety deposit box... will belong to and are to be removed only by my sister Joan Jeremiah.'
- Jeremiah never accessed the box during Hocks' lifetime and was unaware of its exact contents until after his death in March 1985.
Procedural Posture:
- The personal representative of Robert Hocks' estate (Plaintiff) sued Hocks' sister, Joan Jeremiah (Defendant), in a trial court for replevin and conversion of personal property.
- Jeremiah raised the affirmative defense that the property was an inter vivos gift from Hocks.
- Following a trial to the court, the trial court found for Jeremiah and entered a judgment dismissing the estate's action.
- The Plaintiff-appellant (the estate) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
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 placing property into a jointly rented safe deposit box, to which the donor retains access and from which the donor continues to collect interest, constitute sufficient delivery to create a valid inter vivos gift?
Opinions:
Majority - Rossman, J.
No, for the property added by the donor; Yes, for the property physically handed to the donee first. A valid inter vivos gift requires clear and convincing evidence of donative intent, delivery, and the donor's relinquishment of dominion and control. For the initial four bonds, Hocks completed delivery by physically handing them to Jeremiah; her subsequent act of placing them in the joint box and allowing him to collect interest did not negate the completed gift. However, for the diamond and the other 22 bonds that Hocks placed in the box himself, there was no valid delivery. Hocks retained joint access, exclusively used the box, paid for it, and collected the interest, thereby retaining dominion and control. The notes left in the box indicated a future or testamentary intent ('upon my death'), which is ineffective for a present inter vivos gift.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the delivery requirement for inter vivos gifts, especially in the context of jointly held safe deposit boxes. The court establishes that shared access is not synonymous with the relinquishment of dominion and control necessary for a valid gift. It distinguishes between a completed physical delivery prior to placing an item in joint storage and merely placing an item in joint storage as the purported act of delivery. This case serves as a crucial precedent, reinforcing that informal arrangements like a joint safe deposit box cannot substitute for the formal requirements of a will or a properly executed lifetime gift where the donor fully divests themselves of control.
