academicexperts

THE CASE OF THE GIFT OR NOT!
Ruben, age ninety, had a very valuable violin collection consisting of 10 violins, cases and bows. He was frail and was helped by a niece Sahar, who was an excellent violinist. Two weeks after making a new will, Ruben told his niece that he was going to give her the violin collection. “It’s yours,” he said, adding that he would temporarily hold on to the collection for safekeeping. Sahar happily accepted. That same day he also sent Sahar a letter in which he said, “I give you my violin collection, and when I die, it will be yours.”
Ruben died five weeks later. In his will dated prior to the letter, which did not refer to the violins, he left his entire estate to his two children. Sahar brought suit against the estate to have the violin collection declared her property.
The Trial
Sahar testified at the trial about the help she had given her uncle over a period of fifteen years. She produced the letter her uncle had sent her and recalled their many conversations during which her uncle had promised to give her the violins. There was additional testimony that Ruben’s children had never even picked up a violin and had been estranged from their father for years.
The Arguments at Trial
Sahar’s attorney argued that the collection belonged to Sahar because Ruben had gifted the violins to her during his lifetime and that there was symbolic delivery. He further argued that Ruben’s keeping possession of the violins was solely to protect them and in no way invalidated the gift. He also argued that to deprive Sahar of the collection that her uncle obviously wanted to give her would be against Ruben’s wishes.
The children’s attorney argued that the will was validly executed after the letter was sent and promises made orally or in writing do not constitute valid gifts. They further argued that actual and not symbolic delivery is an essential requirement for a gift to be deemed valid.
Questions to Discuss
Who has the stronger argument, Sahar or Ruben’s children? Why?
If you were the jury hearing this case, for whom would you decide? Why?
Should considerations of fairness and the intentions of the person making the will take precedence over a validly executed will?
What problems do you think could arise if oral or written promises were considered under the circumstances of this case?