Opinion ID: 2976925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Personal Property

Text: Tubbs contends that Church’s other gifts of personal property too were unconditional. But other than generally attacking the no-fault approach, Tubbs fails to develop any arguments to challenge the determination that Church’s personal-property gifts depended on the couple’s marriage. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment that the Estate is entitled to recover from Tubbs any of Church’s personal property stored within the Michigan home, including a $4,560 family heirloom diamond ring or its value. 2 We join the dissent in noting that the district court articulated the wrong standard when it said that the Estate “presented sufficient facts to support a finding” of a conditional agreement. Salens v. Tubbs, No. 2:2004cv75069, at 10 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 7, 2006). Reversal is not warranted, however, because the district court supplied the correct formulation when it said that “a federal district court may grant summary judgment . . . where, as here, there is no genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 4. -11- Salens v. Tubbs No. 06-2194