Kinney v. Wasserman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Kinney v. Wasserman

148 N.E.2d 67, 105 Ohio App. 366, 6 Ohio Op. 2d 140, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 801

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 1957

Docket8331 & 8332

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 N.E.2d 67 (Kinney v. Wasserman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kinney v. Wasserman, 148 N.E.2d 67, 105 Ohio App. 366, 6 Ohio Op. 2d 140, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 801 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Long, J.

Samuel Wasserman executed a “paper” on July 20,1931, in which he transferred his shares of stock in the West India Coffee Company, equally to his brother, Isadore Wasserman, and his wife, Anna Wasserman. In this same paper, he stated that it was his “intention that during my lifetime I shall retain full control of said stock and of said company.”

The essential question to be determined is whether the “paper” executed by Samuel Wasserman constituted a gift. It appears that what Samuel Wasserman did here was to establish a trust, reserving a life interest in the property. He did actually cause to be transferred certificates of stock from his name and delivered them to the Spangenbergs to hold till his death, thus making them trustees for the benefit of his wife and brother. It is well settled that a person may transfer property in trust and such transfer will operate as an executed gift inter vivos.

We hold that the delivery to the Spangenbergs satisfied the requirements of a valid gift inter vivos.

The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Hildebrant, P. J., and Matthews, J., concur.

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

Long, J.

Samuel Wasserman executed a “paper” on July 20,1931, in which he transferred his shares of stock in the West India Coffee Company, equally to his brother, Isadore Wasserman, and his wife, Anna Wasserman. In this same paper, he stated that it was his “intention that during my lifetime I shall retain full control of said stock and of said company.”

The essential question to be determined is whether the “paper” executed by Samuel Wasserman constituted a gift. It appears that what Samuel Wasserman did here was to establish a trust, reserving a life interest in the property. He did actually cause to be transferred certificates of stock from his name and delivered them to the Spangenbergs to hold till his death, thus making them trustees for the benefit of his wife and brother. It is well settled that a person may transfer property in trust and such transfer will operate as an executed gift inter vivos.

We hold that the delivery to the Spangenbergs satisfied the requirements of a valid gift inter vivos.

The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas are affirmed.

Judgments affirmed.

Hildebrant, P. J., and Matthews, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.E.2d 67, 105 Ohio App. 366, 6 Ohio Op. 2d 140, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinney-v-wasserman-ohioctapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack