In re the Estate of Leavitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Leavitt

231 A.D.2d 857, 647 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 857 (In re the Estate of Leavitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Leavitt, 231 A.D.2d 857, 647 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The guardian and guardian ad litem of John Sloan (respondents) contend [858]*858that Surrogate’s Court erred in directing the stakeholder, Chase Manhattan Bank, to pay $29,898.50 from a bank account entitled "Nancy J. Leavitt FBO John Sloan.” We disagree. Leavitt, Sloan’s sister and representative payee, opened the account in 1992 on behalf of Sloan, a judicially declared incompetent, and deposited his disability checks therein. On February 25, 1994, less than a year before she died, Leavitt deposited $29,333.01 of her own money into the account.

Respondents did not meet their burden of proving that the deposit of Leavitt’s funds into Sloan’s account constituted an inter vivos gift (see, Mortellaro v Mortellaro, 91 AD2d 862; see also, Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 2104, at 415). To make a gift, the donor must divest herself of dominion and control over the property (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 56; Matter of Szabo, 10 NY2d 94, 98). Here, there is no evidence that Leavitt relinquished dominion and control over the funds, which she could have withdrawn from the account at any time. Moreover, as respondents concede, Leavitt did not establish a Totten trust under EPTL 7-5.2. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly directed the stakeholder to pay the funds to petitioner. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The guardian and guardian ad litem of John Sloan (respondents) contend [858]*858that Surrogate’s Court erred in directing the stakeholder, Chase Manhattan Bank, to pay $29,898.50 from a bank account entitled "Nancy J. Leavitt FBO John Sloan.” We disagree. Leavitt, Sloan’s sister and representative payee, opened the account in 1992 on behalf of Sloan, a judicially declared incompetent, and deposited his disability checks therein. On February 25, 1994, less than a year before she died, Leavitt deposited $29,333.01 of her own money into the account.

Respondents did not meet their burden of proving that the deposit of Leavitt’s funds into Sloan’s account constituted an inter vivos gift (see, Mortellaro v Mortellaro, 91 AD2d 862; see also, Turano, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 58A, SCPA 2104, at 415). To make a gift, the donor must divest herself of dominion and control over the property (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 56; Matter of Szabo, 10 NY2d 94, 98). Here, there is no evidence that Leavitt relinquished dominion and control over the funds, which she could have withdrawn from the account at any time. Moreover, as respondents concede, Leavitt did not establish a Totten trust under EPTL 7-5.2. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly directed the stakeholder to pay the funds to petitioner. (Appeal from Order and Judgment of Monroe County Surrogate’s Court, Ciaccio, S.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Pine, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 857, 647 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-leavitt-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack