Skellenger v. England
81 Cal.App. 176, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 784, 253 P. 191 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A verbal gift of property already in the donee's possession is valid if the donor relinquishes all dominion over the property and recognizes the donee's possession as being in their own right, provided this is supported by clear and satisfactory evidence.
Facts:
- On May 1, 1919, Sophia R. Winslow, plaintiff Harry D. Skellenger's mother, passed away, leaving a last will and testament.
- Around December 1903, Harry D. Skellenger received approximately $85,000 in property from the settlement of his aunt's estate.
- Following this, Harry D. Skellenger delivered $20,000 in money and bonds to his mother, Sophia R. Winslow, under a written agreement granting her a life estate in the property and specifying that the remaining principal would revert to him or his heirs upon her death.
- In 1906, during his first wife's divorce action, Harry D. Skellenger testified under oath that he had absolutely no property or interest, having previously turned over all his properties and interests to his mother absolutely.
- Sophia R. Winslow invested some of the money Harry D. Skellenger gave her into a city lot and built flats, and held some of the bonds.
- In early 1919, while hospitalized as an inebriate, Harry D. Skellenger instructed his mother to destroy the original written agreement, stating he wanted to prevent his current wife from accessing it, though he later claimed he did not intend to divest himself of his ownership.
- Sophia R. Winslow subsequently destroyed the agreement as instructed.
- On March 13, 1919, Sophia R. Winslow modified her will (originally executed in 1914) by cutting out a paragraph that would have bequeathed the flats (purchased with Harry's money) back to Harry, and instead hand-wrote a new disposition giving the flats' rents to Harry's minor sons until they turn 21, then to sell the flats and share the proceeds among her three children, including Harry.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Harry D. Skellenger filed a complaint in the trial court (court of first instance) against defendants Mary D. England (executrix of Sophia R. Winslow's estate) and minor defendants Don and Robert Skellenger.
- Plaintiff sought a judgment declaring that Sophia R. Winslow held specific real and personal property in trust for him, that she had only a life estate in the property, and that he was the owner in fee simple absolute.
- Defendants filed answers to the complaint, raising issues that contested the plaintiff's claims.
- The trial court found that Harry D. Skellenger had made an absolute gift of the property to his mother, Sophia R. Winslow, in 1906 and confirmed this gift in 1919.
- Based on its findings, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendants, thereby rejecting Harry D. Skellenger's claims.
- Harry D. Skellenger (plaintiff) appealed the trial court's judgment.
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 declaration under oath in a separate legal proceeding, combined with consistent actions such as surrendering and later directing the destruction of the written agreement creating a life estate, constitute sufficient evidence of an absolute verbal gift, even when the donee already possessed the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Finch, P. J.
Yes, a donor's declarations under oath and consistent actions can constitute sufficient evidence of an absolute verbal gift, even when the property is already in the donee's possession. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Harry D. Skellenger made an absolute gift to his mother in 1906 and confirmed it in 1919. The court reasoned that while a verbal gift generally requires delivery, when property is already in the donee's possession, actual redelivery is not necessary. Instead, a relinquishment by the donor of all dominion over the property and recognition of the donee's possession as being in her own right, if supported by clear and satisfactory evidence, is sufficient to perfect the gift. The plaintiff's sworn testimony in the 1906 divorce action, made deliberately and under oath for the purpose of defeating his wife's claim for support, stating he had "absolutely nothing" and had "turned over all my property to my mother absolutely," strongly corroborated the finding of an absolute gift. Furthermore, his surrender of his copy of the original agreement in 1906 and his subsequent instruction in 1919 to his mother to destroy the agreement, which was the sole written evidence of his rights, were consistent with the court's finding of a complete gift and inconsistent with his present claims. The court emphasized that evidence must be weighed not only intrinsically but also against what one party could produce and the other contradict, implying the plaintiff's prior sworn statements were powerful evidence against his current position. The court distinguished precedents cited by the appellant regarding gifts of property already in possession, noting they involved different circumstances like intangible property or gifts in view of death, and reiterated that the question of whether evidence is clear and satisfactory is for the trial court.
Analysis:
This case establishes that a party's sworn testimony from a previous legal proceeding, especially when made to gain a tactical advantage, carries substantial weight as evidence of intent in subsequent litigation. It clarifies that proving a verbal gift of property already in the donee's possession does not necessitate physical redelivery but requires clear and satisfactory evidence of the donor's unequivocal intent to relinquish all control and recognize the donee's absolute ownership. The court's reliance on circumstantial evidence like the destruction of a controlling document and the modification of a will demonstrates the holistic approach taken to ascertain intent. Future cases involving disputes over verbal gifts will likely scrutinize prior statements and actions for consistency, and place a heavy burden on a party seeking to contradict their own past sworn declarations.
