Gifts Inter Vivos. Thomas Stafford owned four promissory notes. Payments on the notes were deposited into a bank account in the names of Stafford and his daughter, June Zink, "as joint tenants with right of survivorship." Stafford kept control of the

Question

notes and would not allow Zink to spend any of the proceeds. He also kept the interest on the account. On one note, Stafford indorsed "Pay to the order of Thomas J. Stafford or June S. Zink, or the survivor." The payee on each of the other notes was "Thomas J. Stafford and June S. Zink, or the survivor." When Stafford died, Zink took possession of the notes, claiming that she had been a joint tenant of the notes with her father. Stafford's son, also Thomas, filed a suit in a Virginia state court against Zink, claiming that the notes were partly his. Thomas argued that their father had not made a valid gift inter vivos of the notes to Zink. In whose favor will the court rule? Why?

Answer 1

Gift inter vivos
The court agreed with the son, and the daughter appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. The state supreme court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The state supreme court pointed out that "[o]ne of the elements necessary to constitute a gift inter vivos is that title to the property must vest in the donee at the time of the gift." The court explained that here, the father "never divested himself of dominion and control over any portion of the promissory notes" or the pro-ceeds. During her father's life, Zink could not spend any of the money in the account into which the proceeds were deposited. Also, the interest on the account went to the father, not the daughter. These are not characteristics of a gift of a joint tenancy. "In sum, because there was no valid gift to the daughter of any portion of the notes, she did not hold title with her father as a joint tenant. Thus, without the prerequisite of a joint tenancy, survivorship could not be created."