Westleigh v. Conger
755 A.2d 518, 2000 ME 134, 2000 Me. 134 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a transfer of property to be a valid inter vivos gift, the party claiming the gift must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the donor intended to surrender all present and future dominion and control over the property.
Facts:
- Lenora Conger, the niece of William Westleigh, assisted in caring for him during his declining years.
- In 1996, Westleigh gave Conger $34,000 in cash to keep in her safe deposit box.
- Westleigh told Conger he was transferring the money because he did not want others to know he possessed it.
- Westleigh also told Conger she could use the money to take care of her parents’ medical needs and for other purposes.
- Conger believed that the money should be retained to cover Westleigh’s potential future medical needs and that it would always be available to him if he needed it.
- Westleigh died in 1998, and his will did not mention the transferred funds.
- At the time of Westleigh's death, approximately $27,000 of the original $34,000 remained.
Procedural Posture:
- Following William Westleigh's death, his brother, George Westleigh, petitioned the Oxford County Probate Court to remove Lenora Conger as personal representative.
- The petition also sought to impose a constructive trust on the remaining funds, arguing they belonged to the decedent's estate.
- The Probate Court held a hearing and concluded the transfer was a bailment, not an inter vivos gift, and thus the funds were part of the estate.
- Conger filed a motion for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law, which the Probate Court denied.
- Conger (appellant) appealed the judgment of the Probate Court to the Maine Supreme Judicial 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 the transfer of money from a decedent to his niece constitute a valid inter vivos gift when the recipient believed the money would always be available to the decedent if needed, thus failing to prove the decedent's intent to surrender all present and future dominion over the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Alexander, J.
No. A transfer of money does not constitute a valid inter vivos gift if the person claiming the gift fails to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the donor intended to surrender all present and future dominion over the property. An effective inter vivos gift requires three elements: (1) donative intent, (2) delivery with intent to surrender all present and future dominion over the property, and (3) acceptance by the donee. While the Probate Court found donative intent and acceptance, it concluded Conger failed to prove the second element—that Westleigh intended to surrender all control. The appellate court defers to the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Conger’s own belief that the money would be available to Westleigh if needed, and her testimony that she would have returned it, supports the trial court’s finding that Westleigh did not relinquish all dominion. As the party with the burden of proof, Conger failed to present evidence that compelled a finding in her favor.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' required to prove an inter vivos gift, particularly in disputes arising after the donor's death. It highlights that the element of 'surrender of all dominion' is a critical and independent requirement that must be proven, even if donative intent and acceptance are clear. The decision underscores that the recipient's own understanding and beliefs about the transfer can serve as powerful evidence against the finding of a completed gift. Furthermore, it affirms the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court fact-finding, especially concerning witness credibility and intent.
