Also known as: inter vivos gifts · inter-vivos gift · intervivos gift · lifetime gift
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A voluntary transfer of property to another without compensation made during the donor's lifetime. Completion requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance by the donee, after which the transfer is irrevocable.
Imran Iyer executes a will devising 500 shares of stock to Ilana Isaacs. One month later Imran transfers 300 shares to Ilana and writes a note stating the transfer should count against the devise. After Imran's death the personal representative applies the transfer to reduce the devise by the shares already received.
Isaac Irving transfers a valuable painting to his daughter Isabelle Inman two years before filing bankruptcy. The trustee claims the transfer was fraudulent. The court examines whether the transfer met the elements of a completed inter vivos gift at the time it occurred.
Vickie Lynn Marshall married J. Howard Marshall II, Pierce Marshall’s father, approximately one year before J. Howard’s death. Shortly before J. Howard died, Vickie filed suit against Pierce in Texas state probate court asserting that Pierce had tortiously interfered with a gift J. Howard intended to provide her through a trust. After J. Howard’s death, Vickie filed a petition for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. Pierce filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding asserting a defamation claim against Vickie’s estate arising from statements made to the press by Vickie’s lawyers accusing him of fraud in controlling his father’s assets. Vickie responded by filing a counterclaim for tortious interference with the expected gift from J. Howard. On November 5, 1999, the Bankruptcy Court granted Vickie summary judgment on Pierce’s defamation claim. After a bench trial, on September 27, 2000, the Bankruptcy Court entered judgment for Vickie on her counterclaim and later awarded her over $400 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. The District Court concluded that Vickie’s counterclaim was not a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(C) and therefore treated the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court conducted an independent review of the record. It declined to give preclusive effect to a Texas state court judgment that had been entered in Pierce’s favor. The District Court awarded Vickie compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of $44,292,767.33. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that the Bankruptcy Court lacked authority to enter final judgment on Vickie’s counterclaim because the counterclaim was not so closely related to Pierce’s proof of claim that its resolution was necessary to resolve the allowance or disallowance of that claim. This holding made the Texas probate court judgment the earliest final judgment, which the Court of Appeals held the District Court should have afforded preclusive effect. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseIvan Ivanov hands his classic car keys and title to Ike Ingram after signing the documents. Ike accepts and registers the vehicle. When Ivan later seeks return of the car the court holds the completed delivery and acceptance prevent revocation.
In June 1958, the American Brewery, Inc., in cooperation with Maryland state game officials, placed a tagged rock fish named Diamond Jim III into the Chesapeake Bay as part of its Third Annual American Beer Fishing Derby. The contest rules provided that the person who caught Diamond Jim III and presented the identification tag along with an affidavit confirming capture by hook and line would receive a $25,000 cash prize. The brewery also placed other tagged fish carrying smaller prizes in the bay. On the morning of August 6, 1958, William Simmons caught Diamond Jim III while fishing in the Chesapeake Bay. Although Simmons was aware of the fishing derby, he had not set out specifically to catch the prize fish. After realizing the significance of the tag, Simmons complied with the contest requirements and, during a television appearance arranged by the brewery, received the $25,000 prize. The Internal Revenue Service determined that the prize constituted taxable gross income and assessed a deficiency of $5,230 against Simmons. Simmons paid the tax and filed a claim for refund. After receiving a partial refund based on deductions, Simmons brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland seeking a full refund of the tax paid on the prize. In the district court, Simmons contended that the prize was not includible in gross income or, alternatively, that it qualified for exclusion under section 74(b) for prizes and awards or section 102 for gifts, and that taxing it would violate the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Government. Simmons then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
View caseIsabelle Inman receives a parcel of land from her father during his lifetime. The father's will later conditions another bequest on religious observance. The court treats the earlier land transfer as an absolute inter vivos gift separate from the will's conditional provisions.
David Shapira, M. D., died April 13, 1973, a resident of this county. This is an action for a declaratory judgment and the construction of the will of David Shapira, M. D. By agreement of the parties, the case has been submitted upon the pleadings and the exhibit. The portions of the will in controversy provide that the residue goes to the testator's three beloved children, Buth Shapira Aharoni, Daniel Jacob Shapira, and Mark Benjamin Simon Shapira in equal shares with qualifications. The will states that Daniel Jacob Shapira should receive his share of the bequest only if he is married at the time of the testator's death to a Jewish girl whose both parents were Jewish. In the event that at the time of the testator's death he is not married to a Jewish girl whose both parents were Jewish, then his share should be kept by the executor for a period of not longer than seven years. If Daniel Jacob gets married within the seven year period to a Jewish girl whose both parents were Jewish, the executor is instructed to turn over his share to him. In the event that Daniel Jacob is unmarried within the seven years after the testator's death to a Jewish girl whose both parents were Jewish, or if he is married to a non Jewish girl, then his share should go to the State of Israel, absolutely. The provision for the testator's other son Mark is conditioned substantially similarly. Daniel Jacob Shapira, the plaintiff, is twenty-one years of age, unmarried and a student at Youngstown State University. The plaintiff alleges that the condition upon his inheritance is unconstitutional, contrary to public policy and unenforceable because of its unreasonableness, and that he should be given his bequest free of the restriction.
View caseThe elements are donative intent by the donor, delivery of the property to the donee, and acceptance by the donee. Once these are satisfied the gift is irrevocable.
An inter vivos gift is made without regard to impending death and is irrevocable once completed. A gift causa mortis is made in contemplation of imminent death and is revocable if the donor survives the anticipated peril.
The gift adeems the devise if the testator indicated in a contemporaneous writing or the devisee acknowledged in writing that the gift was intended to operate in satisfaction of the devise.
Supporting sources
Acceptance is presumed when the gift is beneficial to the donee. The donee may refuse the gift but silence or retention typically suffices to complete the transfer.
…marry a Jewish girl as the condition of a completed gift. But it is not true that if Dr. Shapira had agreed to make his son an inter-vivos gift if he married a Jewish girl within seven years, that his son could have forced him to make the gift free of the condition. It is noted, furthermore, in this connection, that the courts of…