Danielian v. Estate of MacLaren H. MacGregor

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 25, 2013
• Docket: YORcv-12-005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT YORK, ss.

FRANCES DANIELIAN ) CI~ACTION DOCKET NO .)?c£-12-0Q-5 Jo(\)- yoR_w I CJj.;z 5 -:£,, ·~ ) Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER v. ) ) ESTATE OF MACLAREN H. ) MACGREGOR, et als. ) ) Defendants. ) )

I. Background

Plaintiff, Frances Daniellian, began working as a caretaker for Mr. MacLaren

H. MacGregor in about 2004 or 2005. (Daniellian Depo. 26:20-25). Plaintiff assisted

Mr. MacGregor with activities such as basic household chores, shopping, grooming

and hygiene, transportation, paperwork and paying bills. (Daniellian Depo. 36:2-

37:2). Over the time Plaintiff worked for Mr. MacGregor, Plaintiff contends that they

became a couple and began to live together. (Daniellian Aff~1). Mr. MacGregor had

paid for aspects Plaintiff's divorce during her divorce proceeding. (Daniellian Mf

~7). On July 29, 2011 Mr. MacGregor signed a check (the "Check") and gave it to

Plaintiff without filling out any other portions of the Check. (Daniellian Depo. 39:7-

18; 40:20-21; 41:21-44:3). On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff filled out the remaining

portions of the check with her divorce attorney. (Daniellian Depo. 43:4-44:13). The

amount of the Check was $357,079.00. (See Plaintiff's Complaint). It was drawn

against an account held by the MacGregor Living trust and payable to the law firm of

Waldrom, Doleac, Woodman. Plaintiff alleges that Mr. MacGregor gave Plaintiff the

1 money as a gift to satisfy the terms of her divorce settlement (Daniellian Aff ~12).

The Check was not honored during Plaintiffs lifetime. (Plaintiffs Complaint Ex. A).

Mr. MacGregor died on August 10, 2011.

Plaintiff filed this case on January 6, 2012 for Declaratory Judgment, Breach

of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Equitable Estoppel, Quantum Meruit, Conversion,

Breach of Gift, and Interference with a Contractual Relationship. (Plaintiff's

Complaint). All of Plaintiffs claims concern her ability to recover the amount of

$357,079.00 as she alleges Mr. MacGregor gifted to her by check prior to his death.

Defendant now moves the Court for Summary Judgment

II. Standard

When a Defendant moves for Summary Judgment, "the plaintiff must establish a

prima facie case for each element of [the] cause of action that is properly challenged in

the defendant's motion." Flaherty v. Muther, 2011l\1E 32, ,-r38, 171 A.3d 640, 652-653.

The burden then shifts to the Defendant to show that there is no genuine issue of material

fact. Summary Judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists and

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989

A. 2d 733,738 (Me. 2010); Dyerv. Department ofTransportation, 951 A.2d 821, 825

(Me. 2008). When reviewing a Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court reviews the

parties' statements of material facts and the cited record evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. Id.

A genuine issue of material fact exists where the fact finder must make a

determination between differing versions of the truth. Reliance National Indemnity v.

2 Knowles Industrial Services Corp., 2005 l\1E 29, ~7, 868 A.2d 220, 224, citing Univ. of

Me. Found. V. Fleet Bank ofMe., 2003 l\1E 20, ~20, 817 A.2d 871, 877. Furthermore, "a

fact is material if it could potentially affect the outcome of the case." Id.

III. Discussion

An inter vivos gift is "a gift of personal property made during the donor's

lifetime and delivered to the donee with the intention of irrevocable surrendering

control over the property." Black's Law Dictionary 758 (9th ed. 2009). In order to

show that an inter vivos gift was made and that a plaintiff/donee is entitled to the

inter vivos gift after the death of the donor, a plaintiff/ donee must show: "donative

intent, delivery with intent to surrender present and future dominion, and

acceptance by donee" Corey v. Corey, 2002 ME 132, ~9, 803 A.2d 1014. Defendant

argues that Plaintiff is unable to make a prima facie showing of any of the three

elements of an inter vivos gift and therefore moves the court to grant Summary

Judgment. Plaintiff argues that she has made a prima facie showing and that there

are genuine issues of material fact to be determined by a jury.

Donative Intent

In order to show donative intent of an inter vivos gift, Plaintiff must show

donative intent. Donative intent is the donor's "intent to surrender dominion and

control over the gift that is being made." Black's Law Dictionary 882 (9th ed. 2009).

Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show donative intent because Plaintiff, not

Mr. MacGregor, filled out all parts of the Check but for the signature line. Therefore,

3 Defendant argues, Mr. MacGregor did not have full knowledge of the Check and

could not have had the intent to give Plaintiff the amount of the Check. Plaintiff

alleges that she and Mr. MacGregor had discussed and agreed upon the amount of

the gift and they had intentionally left the other spaces on the Check blank in order

for Plaintiff to complete with her divorce attorney. The Court finds that whether Mr.

MacGregor intended to give Plaintiff the amount of the Check for settlement of her

divorce is a factual determination to be determined by a jury. This issue is not

appropriate for Summary Judgment.

Delivery

For a valid delivery of an inter vivos gift,

the giver must part with all present and future dominion _9ver the property given. He cannot give it and at the same time retain ownership of it. There must be a delivery to the donee or to some one for the donee. And the gift must be absolute and irrevocable without any reference to its taking effect at some future period.

Norway Sav. Bank v. Merriam, 88 ME 146, 149, 33 A 840 (1895). For the gift in

question to be valid, Mr. MacGregor had to intend to give up all claim to the funds at

the time of delivery. Before the Court is a dispute as to the facts surrounding the

intentions of Mr. MacGregor when he gave Plaintiff the check bearing only his

signature. Delivery and Acceptance both depend upon the intentions of the parties,

and as such, they are factual questions that must be determined by a jury. The Court

finds that Summary Judgment on the matters of delivery and acceptance would be

inappropriate.

4 IV. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.

DATED: February ..2_5, 2013 John O'Neil, Jr. Justice, Superior Court

Is/ John H. O'Neil

5 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF: GREGORY J ORSO ESQ ORSOLAWPA PO BOX 1229 YORK HARBOR ME 03911

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS: MATTHEW W HOWELL ESQ CLARK & HOWELL LLC PO BOX 545 YORK ME 03909