Brief Fact Summary. The decedent wrote a note prior to death which directed her husband to certain money, a savings account and shares in a building and loan association. The husband would not have received the property under the decedent’s will and the Plaintiffs, those responsible for carrying out the will, sued the husband to recover the property.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The doctrine of gift causa mortis is subject to strict requirements, including delivery, which are necessary to limit the application of the doctrine due to the fact that it intrudes on the statute of wills.
Issue. Does the note written by the Decedent constitute a valid gift causa mortis of the property described therein to the Defendant?
Held. No. The judgment of the intermediate appellate court is reversed and the judgment of the trial court in favor of the Plaintiffs is reinstated.
The Decedent’s will gave to the Defendant one dollar. The Defendant claimed that the property described in the note from Decedent prior to her death was a gift causa mortis, which falls outside the law of probate. The Court noted the historical definition of the doctrine of donatio causa mortis and stated that the doctrine was based on certain elements which must be established to validate such a purported gift.
The elements of a gift causa mortis are: 1. The gift must be made in light of the impending death of the donor; 2. The donor must die of the peril or disorder which creates the basis for impending death; 3. There must be delivery of the thing given; 4. The donor must be competent to make the gift; 5. There must be an intent on the part of the donor to make the gift; 6. There must be acceptance by the donee. The Court further found that the delivery must be actual and serve to completely divest the donor of possession. A transfer under a gift causa mortis is reversible by the donor if the donor recovers from the peril. The doctrine of gift causa mortis is an invasion into the realm of law regarding wills.
The Court found that in the facts presented, there was no delivery of the items in the note whatsoever. The donor’s intent was established, but not the requirement of actual delivery.
Also, the Court found that the note failed to authorize the Defendant to take possession of the chattels mentioned therein due to the fact that Decedent was under the influence of ether and unconscious at the time the Defendant took the note from the drawer in the hospital room. Thus, the Decedent lacked capacity to grant such authority.
The delivery must be such as is actual, unequivocal, and complete during the lifetime of the donor, wholly divesting him of the possession, dominion, and control thereof.View Full Point of Law