Scherer v. Hyland

Supreme Court of New Jersey · Property

PropertyGifts causa mortisgift causa mortisconstructive deliverydeliverydonative intentacceptancesuicide

Facts

Catherine Wagner and Robert Scherer lived together for about fifteen years, and after Wagner was injured in an automobile accident, Scherer cared for her and supported the household. On the morning of the day she committed suicide, Wagner received a $17,400 settlement check, endorsed it in blank, and left it on the kitchen table in the apartment she shared with Scherer next to notes stating, among other things, that she gave him all her possessions including the check. Wagner then left the apartment, locked the door, and jumped from the roof of the building. Police later found the check and notes in the apartment, and the check was placed in an interest-bearing account pending this action.

Issue

Whether Wagner's acts of endorsing the settlement check, placing it where Scherer would find it next to a writing clearly showing her intent to transfer it, and leaving the apartment with an expectation of imminent death constituted sufficient delivery to support a valid gift causa mortis. The court also addressed whether contemplated suicide can supply the requisite peril and whether acceptance was lacking because Scherer did not learn of the gift until after Wagner's death.

Rule

A gift causa mortis requires a gift of personal property made in expectation of imminent death and conditioned on the donor's death as anticipated. Delivery remains required, but constructive delivery is sufficient when the evidence of donative intent is concrete and undisputed, the donor intended a present transfer of the subject matter, and the donor took steps that she deemed sufficient to pass her interest to the donee; if delivery is valid and the gift is unconditional and beneficial, acceptance will be implied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz received a personal-injury settlement check payable to her. Believing she would die during surgery the next morning, she endorsed the check in blank, placed it on the kitchen counter of the apartment she shared with Noah Kim, left a note stating that the check was his, and departed for the hospital expecting not to return; Noah found it only after Lena died during the operation.

Is the check most likely the subject of a valid gift causa mortis?

Explanation. A gift causa mortis requires personal property, expectation of imminent death, and delivery. The majority held that constructive delivery is sufficient when intent is concrete and undisputed, the donor intended a present transfer, and the donor took steps she deemed sufficient to pass her interest. Endorsing the check and placing it where the donee would find it strongly supports surrender of ownership. Acceptance can be implied even if the donee learns of the gift only after death. (Derived from Scherer v. Hyland (n.d.).)