Court Opinion

ID: 9629926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:53:14.661958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:27.062422
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
The chancellor’s findings of fact do not support his conclusion that the transfer of appellee’s interest in real property “was fraudulently induced by threats and misrepresentations of [appellant].” The findings of fact support with equal force a conclusion that appellee, the financial decisionmaker of the family, intended to make a gift to appellant because of his feelings of remorse and his desire to protect the welfare of his family.
As the majority correctly notes, a transfer of property from husband to wife gives rise to the presumption of a gift. Butler v. Butler, 464 Pa.-, 347 A.2d 477 (1975); Clay v. Reiser, 460 Pa. 620, 334 A.2d 263 (1975) ; Shapiro v. Shapiro, 424 Pa. 120, 224 A.2d 164 (1966); Lapayowker v. Lincoln College Preparatory School, 386 Pa. 167, 125 A.2d 451 (1956). “In order to rebut that presumption and establish a resulting trust in [the donor’s] favor, the [donor] must support his claim by clear, explicit and unequivocal—though not necessarily uncontradicted—evidence.” Shapiro v. Shapiro, supra, 424 Pa. at 129, 224 A.2d at 169; see Clay v. Reiser, supra at 626, *580334 A.2d at 266-67; Lapayowker v. Lincoln College Preparatory School, supra, 386 Pa. at 171-72, 125 A.2d at 454.
The evidence here is insufficient to meet this well-established standard, which the majority inexplicably ignores. The majority relies on events which occurred subsequent to the transfer, including the “total abatement” of marital relations either the day after or three days after the transfer. This does not support, by “clear, explicit and unequivocal” evidence, appellant’s intent to defraud her husband. Numerous other possible explanations exist for this behavior. I would reverse the decree.