Robinson v. Hoalton
2 P.2d 344, 213 Cal. 370, 1931 Cal. LEXIS 532 (1931)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The general rule requiring actual or symbolical delivery for a valid inter vivos gift is relaxed when the donor and donee are members of the same family living in the same household; a gift is valid if it is clear the donor relinquished, and the donee acquired, dominion and control over the property.
Facts:
- Alba G. Robinson owned a dairy farm where he lived with his son, W. A. Robinson, who helped manage the farm as his father grew older.
- On January 16, 1913, Alba G. Robinson deeded the farm to his son, W. A. Robinson, and at the same time orally stated he was turning over all personal property on the farm, including livestock and equipment, to him.
- Following this transaction, W. A. Robinson assumed full management of the farm and treated all the personal property as his own, without objection from his father, until his father's death in 1916.
- For nearly five years after his father's death, W. A. Robinson continued to use and control the personal property as his own, without any claim or objection from his sisters, Harriet W. Stewart and Georgia M. Hoalton.
- In January 1921, W. A. Robinson sold the personal property for approximately $2,300 to $2,400.
- On April 18, 1921, W. A. Robinson loaned $2,200 of the proceeds from that sale to his sister, Georgia M. Hoalton, and her husband, who executed a promissory note and mortgage in his favor.
Procedural Posture:
- W. A. Robinson filed an action in the trial court to foreclose a mortgage against the defendants, Georgia M. Hoalton and her husband.
- The defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint, alleging the loan money was not the plaintiff's property.
- Harriet W. Stewart, as administratrix of the estate of Alba G. Robinson, filed a complaint in intervention, claiming the loan money was an asset of the estate.
- The trial court entered a judgment and decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff, W. A. Robinson.
- The intervener, Harriet W. Stewart, 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 an oral transfer of personal property between a father and son living and working on the same farm constitute a valid gift where there is no physical delivery, but the son subsequently assumes and exercises exclusive dominion and control over the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Curtis, J.
Yes, the oral transfer constituted a valid gift. While a gift generally requires delivery, the rule is not strictly applied to transactions between family members living in the same house. It is sufficient if the donor relinquishes and the donee acquires all dominion and control over the property. Here, the father's statement, combined with the son’s subsequent assumption of control over the farm and the property, and the sisters' acquiescence for over a decade, demonstrates a completed gift. The fact that the father continued to list the property on his tax returns is not determinative, as he did the same with the real property which was indisputably transferred.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'family exception' to the delivery requirement for inter vivos gifts, providing a more flexible standard for informal property transfers within a household. It establishes that courts can look to circumstantial evidence, particularly the subsequent conduct of the parties and their family, to determine if dominion and control have been transferred. This precedent makes it harder to challenge long-standing, informal family property arrangements on technical grounds, prioritizing demonstrated intent and control over strict formalities.
