Newman v. Bost (1898) (gift causa mortis insurance policy)

a.       Facts- P was caretaker of Van Pelt. Before his death, Van Pelt gave P private keys and told her that everything in the house belongs to her. One of the keys opened a drawer, which contained an insurance policy. P is suing D, the administrator of Van Pelt’s estate, claiming that she owned the insurance policy.

b.      Procedural History-

c.       Issue- Whether handing over keys to a locked drawer containing an insurance policy constitutes gift causa mortis of said insurance policy.

d.      Holding- No, handing over the keys to a locked drawer containing an insurance policy does not constitute gift causa mortis

e.       Rule- Two things must be present for a gift causa mortis:

                                                              i.      An intention to make the gift

                                                            ii.      A delivery of the thing given

f.       Rationale- Since the life insurance policy was capable of actual delivery, Van Pelt was required to execute actual deliver of same

                                                              i.      Two things are required for a gift to be effected:

1.      Delivery, AND

a.       Constructive delivery

2.      Intent

a.        

g.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Did Van Pelt sufficiently fulfill the intent requirement of the gift causa mortis?

1.      Yes, Van Pelt gave expressed statements in the presence of a witness

2.      “Delivery” element is NOT effected in this case

                                                            ii.      Gift causa mortis is in contemplation of death

                                                          iii.      If you give a gift causa mortis, the gift is revoked upon finding out that the giver is going to be alive and well

                                                          iv.      If you give a gift inter vivos, it is irrevocable…you lose all rights

                                                            v.      You can use the same facts to satisfy both (1) intent and (2) delivery

                                                          vi.      You can argue that by giving the keys to the house, he effectively gave everything in the house

                                                        vii.      What if delivery is made…then intent is effected a week later?

1.      Policy- No need, to “re-give” because that would be cumbersome

2.      Timing does NOT matter when considering delivery or intent

a.      One can come after the other

                                                      viii.      Delivery can show intent…but delivery does NOT substitute for intent

                                                          ix.      The ‘key’ does NOT show ‘constructive’ delivery

                                                            x.      How FAR can symbolic delivery go?? Where do we draw the line?