A. Legal Cognizance
• The father of 3 children passed away, the eldest son who had authority over the handling of the will gathered the assets (which included a car recently delivered to the 17 year old son. Ronnie (the 17 year old) filed a motion to retrieve the car, stating it was intended as a gift from his father. the court sided with Ronnie (overturned by the state supreme court due to lack of jurisdiction who reversed the choice, then the case was sent to a different court which again reversed the ruling in Ronnie’s favor.
a. Briefly describe the facts.
• the car was bought, gifted, delivered, and accepted, all with the intent of the car belonging to Ronnie, he being 17 at the time could not hold the title,but was capable of using and owning the car
b. Which facts were key to the outcome?
• Ronnie did not acquire title to car (was a minor at age of 17 and couldn’t hold title)
• Mother / loan officer stated the father bought it as a gift
• the father did not maintain a key to the car
• the car was delivered to Ronnie
• The intent was the car was to be a gift
2. Legal issue:
• GIFTING (along with the accompanied delivery, acceptance, and intent of the gift)
a. What legal issue(s) does this case illustrate (i.e. why is this case in the chapter)?
• GIFTING: the father purchased the item with the intent to give it to the son free of charge.
• DELIVERY: after delivery of the gift, the father had nothing to do with the car
• ACCEPTANCE: the boy clearly accepted the gift, using it as solely his.
• INTENT: the party never gave the title to the minor, but established the cars possession with the boy through his clear intent
b. What are all of the elements of the main legal rule that this case illustrates? For instance, if the case is about undue influence, list ALL of the elements that the court in this case said had to be proven by the plaintiff.
• The primary concern was whether or not the car was a gift (which was proven by testimonies of four different people), along with gifting was the discussion of the intent of the father, who through the testimonies of witnesses was found to have purely bought the car for his son only. It also touched upon the brief delivery of the car and the separation of the father from the car at the time of acceptance.
Repeat 2. for each issue raised. (For example, a case may discuss 1. Whether there is an implied-in-fact contract, and II. Whether the UCC or common law applied. If so, you will repeat 2. for each of these two issues.)
B. Expand Perspective, Gain Interpersonal Understanding, and Critically Assess Implications
• My question was with the mother being around, why was she not placed in charge of the family matters concerning the will? instead the matters were left to speculative and subjective assumptions concerning the fathers assets.
3. Prevailing party’s point of view:
• The car was expressly given to the son as a gift, for him and him only. the gift was an Inter Vivos gift.
a. What legal arguments were made by the prevailing party?
• The father had bought the car with the intent of gifting, taken out a loan (verified) with the intent of gifting, delivered the car, and accepted by Ronnie, whereupon the father then separated himself from the car in all major ways. this information was all backed by reliable witnesses and family members.
b. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the prevailing party?
• The car was in every way possible meant to be in Ronnies hands only, the instructions and intentions were as express and clear as could possibly be. The only possible claim the older son could make is that Ronnie didn’t have the title (not allowed until 17) which would not hold up in court.
• Inter Vivos gifts must be: 1)donor must have a sound mind 2)delivery must happen 3)delivery with intention 4)gift released to donee 5)donee accepts gift. (all these conditions were met)
c. What were the probable motivations behind the prevailing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute?
• The car was a valuable tool being in college, providing transportation to and from class, it also likely held a large sentimental value to Ronnie, as it was gifted just days before the death. In every way shape and form he likely felt entitled to this car and its benefits.
Repeat 3. for each and every issue in the case.
4. Losing party’s point of view:
• Only main argument they made was that it was not a gift.
a. What legal arguments were made by the losing party?
• Only argument they made was that it was not a gift (no other reasoning was given or provided other than the title and insurance was with the father and in his name).
b. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles would support a ruling for the losing party?
• The only plausible case the administrator of the will could have was that the title was not with Ronnie, even then this argument wouldn’t hold up since Ronnie cant have the title until he reaches the age of majority/legal age. Social policy dictates if someone is gifted something lawfully, it then belongs to them.
• One other semi valid argument was the insurance for the car was in the fathers name instead of Ronnies (which happens a lot during minority)
c. What were the probable motivations behind the losing party’s actions leading up to the dispute? After the dispute?
• The truck likely represented a valuable asset the administrator could use in terms of splitting up the assets fairly, because the transaction was made just days before death it likely left a lot of unanswered questions as to the true owner of the truck.
Repeat 4. for each and every issue in the case.
5. Judge’s point of view:
• All 5 critical aspects (inter vivos gift) of a gift were met clearly, thus the truck was Ronnies.
a. How did the court rule on each argument?
• All 5 gift aspects were met
• the insurance was in the fathers name (normal when dealing with a child)
• the testimonies verified the facts.
b. What facts, legal reasoning, social policy, and ethical principles did the court use to support its ruling?
• The primary reasoning focused on the 5 factors that make up the inter vivos gift, all of these applied and solidified Ronnies ownership. Though there may have been some legal loopholes the administrator could have sought to pursue, Ethically there was no reasoning that could have been presented to say the car wasn’t Ronnies. The father expressly gifted it.
c. What were the probable motivations behind the judge’s decision?
• The car not only meant a great deal to the young boy, but it was clearly intended for his sole use and ownership. The judge also acted in a way that avoided diving the interests of this family.
Repeat 5. for each ruling made by the judge.
C. Find Recent Developments and Diverse Theories, Synthesize, and Compare
• When it comes to family disputations of wills, it seems as if most judges and courts tread lightly on making decisions, almost as if they’re encouraging the family to settle it among themselves to avoid hostile feelings from coming into play. not many of these cases actually seem to end up in court, fortunately they mostly end up in working things out in private.
6. Different Rules: Pose the question “What if the court adopted a different legal rule?”
• Had the court viewed the insurance issuance to the father as an indication that the father maintained a portion of ownership they may have sided differently.
a. Search the web for other articles to refer to in your article or call an attorney or business professional who may have experience with this type of issue. Write a brief one-paragraph summary of this case or article:
• The 3 children of Martin Luther King are currently going to mediation for the dispute over their fathers historic bible he used in some civil rights speeches. the brothers have been given authority, but the daughter is in possession claiming it was given to her by her father. they decision to settle has yet to be made, but will soon proceed.
b. Ponder and reflect to compare this case to recent news and cases. This is the really cool part. You will be thinking like a legally astute manager, owner, or professional as you read, analyze and compare cases to draw your conclusions. Some neat ideas to help with your analysis: If the outcomes of the recent cases you found are different, can you make sense of the different outcomes? Are there different legal standards that make for different outcomes? Is there a trend leaning more in favor of a plaintiff or defendant’s position? Are the outcomes the same or different simply because the facts are similar or dissimilar? What accounts for the same or different results? Write your thoughts here:
• As a manager It would be difficult to deal with disputes with co workers and employees. As an administrator its vital to take care of assignments and details about who owns and is responsible for what. While most of these types of disputes are settled outside of the court room every so often it requires us to go head to head with people we care about.
D. Creative, Application and Critical Thinking Questions
• Why was the authority given to the son to administer the dealings of the will, when the mother still was alive and well? that is my major question. Similarly, why was she unable to settle the disputation as a family rather than in court? my only thinking could be that she was either divorced, or had little dealings with her children due to some dispute.
7. Your point of view of the case in the book:
• All major details (aside from the insurance in the fathers name) favored on the minors side and proved that the car indeed was a gift. Added with the clear and unified statements from various parties, this case was a sure lock for Ronnie.
a. Do you agree or disagree with the actual outcome? Why or why not?
• I agree 100 %, the car was so clearly and expressly meant for Robbie there can be no disputation about it. While i’m sure the asset would have been helpful for him as the admin to the will, it was the lawful and ethical thing to do to give him the car.
b. Change it up: Pose the question “What if the facts were different?” Create changes to the facts that would probably result in a different outcome of the case and, using critical thinking and legal reasoning, tell why your change in facts would make a difference.
• Had the Father borrowed the car on a few times or maintained ownership of one of the keys the courts may have ruled the car was a shared asset.
c. Relate the case to your own experience, if applicable, or to the experience someone else has shared with you.
• Occasionally as a kid our dad would leave candy on the counter for us children, naturally each of us liked a variety of different kinds. not knowing which type of candy was for each of us we would grab the one we wanted, thus sometimes leaving one of us children with an unwanted type/brand of candy. Had he expressly made clear which type belonged to who these tragic situations could have been avoided haha.
d. How will you apply the lessons from this case to your future career?
• when it comes to passing on assets to others, it is critical it be duly noted so that no oversights or accusations could be made.
e. Write recommendations to avoid future legal problems and that best suit the objectives of a firm or company in your chosen career field.
• In the accounting firm its critical to correctly mark and categorize all balances in their proper classification group, doing so will help avoid confusion when presenting financial statements to owners and investors.
A. Legal Cognizance