Scherer v. Hyland
1977 N.J. LEXIS 267, 380 A.2d 698, 75 N.J. 127 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a donor's intent to make a gift causa mortis is clear and unequivocal, a constructive delivery will be deemed sufficient if the donor took substantial steps to effectuate the transfer, such as placing the item where the donee will find it and then permanently relinquishing control.
Facts:
- Catherine Wagner and Robert Scherer lived together for approximately fifteen years.
- Following a car accident, Wagner suffered from impaired mobility and acute depression, and Scherer became her caregiver and sole financial provider.
- Wagner had previously attempted suicide by slashing her wrists.
- On the morning of January 23, 1974, Wagner received a settlement check for $17,400 related to her car accident injuries.
- That afternoon, Wagner endorsed the check in blank and placed it on the kitchen table of the apartment she shared with Scherer.
- Next to the check, Wagner left two handwritten notes, one expressing her love for Scherer and her despair, and another stating she 'bequeathed' all her possessions, including the check, to him.
- Immediately after, Wagner left the apartment and committed suicide by jumping from the building's roof.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Scherer, the plaintiff, brought an action against the Administrator of Catherine Wagner's Estate, the defendant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Scherer, holding that a valid gift causa mortis had been made.
- The defendant (Administrator) appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
- A majority of the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment, with one judge dissenting.
- The defendant (Administrator) then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 endorsing a check, leaving it in a shared apartment next to a note expressing donative intent, and then departing with the intent to commit suicide constitute a sufficient constructive delivery for a valid gift causa mortis?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. The donor's actions constituted a sufficient constructive delivery for a valid gift causa mortis. The primary purpose of the delivery requirement is evidentiary, serving as a safeguard against fraud. Where the donative intent is concrete, unequivocal, and undisputed, as it is here, a rigid requirement of manual delivery is unnecessary. The court found that Wagner's endorsement of the check, placement of it in a location where Scherer was certain to find it, and her subsequent departure from the apartment with no expectation of returning, collectively constituted a complete surrender of dominion and control. This constructive delivery was adequate to support the gift, as she did all she could or thought necessary to effectuate the transfer. The court also held that suicide is a valid peril to sustain a gift causa mortis, as death is no less impending because it is self-inflicted.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in New Jersey law regarding gifts causa mortis, moving away from the strict manual delivery requirement articulated in Foster v. Reiss. The court embraced a more flexible, intent-focused approach, reasoning that the evidentiary purpose of the delivery rule is satisfied when donative intent is overwhelmingly clear from other evidence. By validating a gift where delivery was constructive rather than actual, the case establishes that courts should not thwart a donor's clear purpose with 'nice distinctions' and technicalities. This ruling broadens the definition of delivery and modernizes the doctrine by recognizing contemplated suicide as a sufficiently imminent peril.
