If fault were considered in the Gaden case, how might that have influenced the court’s decision?

Assignment 1 (1/2 page) Answer Professor 2 questions, site at least one reference.

Professor Posted

Hi,

Excellent explanation of the distinction between real and personal property and how courts approach these classifications.

Your mention of jurisdictional differences in handling engagement rings is a great addition, as it highlights the complexities in applying property law across different contexts. It’s interesting how you connected societal trends, such as gender norms, to the dissenting perspective in Gaden, adding depth to the discussion. Good work!

To build on your analysis, do you think the inclusion of fault in determining ownership of conditional gifts (such as engagement rings) helps or complicates the resolution of these disputes?

Class, they noted that societal trends and legal principles often intersect in cases like Gaden v. Gaden.

How should courts balance traditional legal principles, such as conditional gifts, with evolving societal values when resolving disputes over engagement gifts?

Thanks for sharing.

***Original Post that lead to Professor’s response***

posted Jan 3, 2025 8:08 PM

How do the courts treat real property and personal property?

Courts distinguish real property from personal property based on its permanence and characteristics. Real property is the land and fixtures subjected to stricter laws due to their immovable nature and social value, as discussed in Chapter 1 of Essentials of Real Estate Law. (Fields & Fields, 2023). Personality is more mobile than reality and, therefore, has a better status in the legal system. The distinction makes it possible to address the conflicts between the owners, basing the legal relations on the specific characteristics of each type.

What was the court’s decision? What was the dissenting judge’s argument?

In Gaden v. Gaden (N.Y 1971), the Court of Appeals held that an engagement gift, categorized as real property (land), must be returned to the donor as the condition of the marriage gift was unmet. The court used the principle of conditional gifting and treated the real property as dependent on the parties completing the marriage contract. Since the condition was not met, the donor remained the better equity to the property. The dissenting opinion to this effect also sought to dispute this line of reasoning on a rather simplistic basis that the property transfer was a completed gift, which should not be made to turn on whether or not the engagement to which it was tied was a failure (Field & Field, 2023). The dissent emphasized that the inclusion of contingencies into such transactions prolongs traditional living models of gender and relations. This was a healthier perspective that insisted on the gift’s pivotal independence about the success or failure of the engagement.

Would the outcome in Gaden be different if the court treated the engagement ring as a different property type? Why, or why not?

If the engagement ring is considered personal rather than reality, it may lead to a different result. Regarding personal property, especially engagement rings, the rules are usually jurisdictional. Most states adopt the “conditional gift” rule under which the ring will be returned if The Essentials of Real Estate Law does not occur. Some go even further and use the “no-fault” rule, and once the ring is placed on the finger, it is considered a completed gift, even if the ring was mistakenly placed on the finger. The recipient could have held the property if he had implemented the no-fault principle in Gaden v. Gaden (N.Y 1971). In addition, it is evidenced that property classification affects legal outcomes most directly, as the interplay between legal systems and societal trends is revealed.

Reference

Fields, C. K., & Fields, K. C. (2023). Essentials of Real Estate Law (2nd ed.). Aspen Publishing.

Gaden v. Gaden, 272 N.E.2d 471 (N.Y. 1971).

New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b (1965). Gifts made in contemplation of marriage. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.us1.proxy.openathens.net/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000060&cite=NYCRS80-B&originatingDoc=I24471c60171d11e78e18865f4d27462d&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&ppcid=10be92f499304a1bb57a8cca358d9857&contextData

————————————-
Assignment 2 (1/4 page) Read Discussion & Professor reply & reply to Professor.

Ask 1 question to discussion post & site one Reference

posted Jan 4, 2025 3:29 AM

Unit 1 Discussion

Q1: The decision in this case was the reversal of the appellate division’s decision and the reinstatement of the trial court’s decision. The trial decision was to apply the New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b to this case, treating the real property as a gift that can be recovered when the marriage did not happen. This law, enacted in 1965, allows for recovering things like Chattel, money, and real property.

Q3: The dissented opinion was given by Justice Breitel, who stated that unless one assumed that Elmer and Dorothy were engaged to be married and that the property was offered to the soon-to-be wife as a gift, then it be unreasonable to apply the New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b because there had not been a proper gift. Considering what constitutes a gift will give deeper insight into the dissenting opinion of Justice Breitel. A legitimate give must contain the following:

Intent to give, the donor’s intent to make a gift to the one receiving such gift,
Delivery of the gift to the recipient
Acceptance of the gift (Gift | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, n.d.).
This case lacks these three essential steps, which need to be considered when a gift is given by the donor and accepted by the recipient.

Q3: The engagement ring is considered personal rather than real property and, in most cases, is given with a condition or a promise that the recipient will marry the donor. Still, the recipient can keep the ring even if the marriage never happens. There are some exceptions to this type of conditional rule, like where there is fraud, undue influence, or egregious conduct. Thus, the decision would have been different in this case if the court had considered that the real property was not given or promised as a gift. Even if the plaintiff assumed it was, it would only be given if the couple got married.

References

gift | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Law.Cornell.Edu. Retrieved January 4, 2025, from

Vlex. (n.d.). Gaden v. Gaden.

The Wedding Is Called Off: Who Keeps the Engagement Ring? (n.d.). Walter Gilbreath. .

*****Professor Response to *****

, good job outlining the court’s decision and the dissenting opinion in Gaden v. Gaden. I like how you broke down Justice Breitel’s reasoning by focusing on the essential elements of a valid gift – intent, delivery, and acceptance. This is a key point that adds depth to understanding why the dissenting opinion challenged the majority’s application of New York Civil Rights Law § 80-b.

Also, your analysis of how engagement rings are generally treated as conditional gifts is well-stated. You made an excellent observation about the exceptions to this rule, such as fraud or undue influence. I especially appreciated your mention of the distinction between real and personal property and how the conditional nature of the gift can vary depending on the type of property.

You raised an intriguing point about the conditional nature of the real property gift and how the court might have treated it differently. To expand on that, do you think the court should weigh the value and significance of the gift (real property versus personal property) when determining its conditionality?

Class, they brought up the essential elements of a valid gift. Considering these elements, how do you think courts should approach disputes where there is ambiguity about the donor’s intent or delivery? Should external circumstances, like the duration of the engagement or the actions of the parties, play a role in the court’s decision?

Question: If fault were considered in the Gaden case, how might that have influenced the court’s decision?

Should courts consider which party caused the engagement to end when determining ownership of gifts?

Last Completed Projects