Court Opinion

ID: 9707404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:10:49.13607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:32.241041
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Mr. Justice Flaherty, writing for the majority, sets forth the correct standard enunciated in Yarnall Estate, 376 Pa. 582, 103 A.2d 753 (1954), for assessing the creation of a valid parol gift of land. However, he then finds that there was no parol gift of land because appellee, Richard C. Fuisz, did not accept a written instrument confirming the conveyance of the property on those occasions when his mother, appellant, Margaret Fuisz, expressly made the gift of land to him. This makes no sense.
The present record is not “devoid of direct and unambiguous evidence that a gift was made.” Maj. op. at 355. On the contrary, there is abundant parol evidence of a gift. Appellant testified in clear and certain terms that she had given the property to her son.1 Although I agree that “[acceptance by the donee is a necessary element of a valid gift,” maj. op. at 355, I disagree that on the facts of this *357case there was no clear and unambiguous acceptance made by the appellee as donee. Appellee built a house on the property with his own money when it was given to him in 1972, and he treated the property as his own thereafter. In fact, the property settlement agreement he entered into with his ex-wife permitted her to live there for as long as she wished. Documentation of the conveyance was simply not an essential element of the gift transaction between mother and son.2 Thus, I would find that a valid gift was made and accepted.
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Superior Court which affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County.

. Appellant testified as follows:
*357A ... ‘Tve given [the property] to him twice.”
******
Q Okay. But for this ill-treatment that you say he’s been giving you, would you have conveyed this property to him?
A Before that?
Q Yes.
A I was willing. Didn’t I prove it when I gave it to him? Didn’t I prove it?
******
A Well, I told you that I let him have it twice, but I don’t remember — I did tell you that I gave it to him twice ...
Deposition of Margaret Fuisz at 10, 28, and 34 (May 5, 1987) (emphasis added).
A ... I gave him that land. I offered that land to him a number of times. And the last time when he had it surveyed, I told him he could take as much as he wanted.
Notes of Testimony at 17 (Jan. 27, 1988) (emphasis added).

. Appellee testified that he did not want a deed to the property in the 1970’s because he felt that such graphic evidence of the conveyance of the property would endanger the well-being of his father who was suffering from a terminal illness and had not been told the seriousness of his condition. Appellant testified that her son did not want a deed to the property at that time because he was having marital difficulties and did not want the property to be subject to a property settlement with his wife. Regardless of which evidence is more credible, it is clear that a gift was made and accepted. It was simply a matter of convenience for the parties not to formalize the transaction in writing.