Geisler v. Eminizer

• Decision Date: 25 August 1965
• Docket Number: No. 375,375
• Citation: 212 A.2d 734,240 Md. 72
• Parties: Robert GEISLER v. Roscoe EMINIZER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 72

240 Md. 72

212 A.2d 734

Robert GEISLER v. Roscoe EMINIZER.

No. 375.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 25, 1965.

William O. Goldstein and Robert Hess, Baltimore, for appellant.

Joseph I. Huesman, Baltimore (Thomas F. Dempsey, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and BARNES, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

We are concerned on this appeal with the monetary transactions between a grandfather (Roscoe Eminizer) and a grandson (Robert Geisler). In all there were twelve transactions (totaling $6,457.13) involving five different items or matters. The grandfather asserts that all were loans. Except for the first one, the grandson insists that all were gifts. The record indicates that four of the items or matters were loans, but it is not possible to ascertain from the record before us the nature of the fifth matter.

The first item in point of time involved the transfer of $300 in cash from the grandfather to the grandson, who was then in the Coast Guard, to buy an automobile for his use while off duty. It is conceded that this was a loan, that $100 was repaid prior to suit and that the balance due was $200.

The second matter (though not in chronological order) involved the issuance of four checks over a period of ten months to the grandson aggregating $640.13 ¹ with which the grandson was to construct a pile driver to enable him to go in business for himself after he had completed his duties in the Coast Guard. All of these checks were marked 'loan pile driver' by the grandfather after the cancelled checks had been returned to him by the bank. According to the grandfather, they constituted a loan to be repaid after the grandson began working regularly with the pile driver. But, according to the grandson, these transactions were gifts.

The third item concerned the issuance of a check for $500 (exhibit ten dated December 23, 1961) to the grandson while he was still in the Coast Guard to be used to extricate himself from a situation he had gotten into. As to this check (which the grandson endorsed to his attorney) it was stipulated that if the attorney were called as a witness he would testify that the $500 was a loan; that he had charged his client a fee of only $25 for services rendered in solving the problem; and that he gave the balance of $475 to the grandson believing that he would return it to the grandfather. This was never done, but the grandson testified that the attorney told him that the grandfather had said the money was to be used to purchase the machinery he needed to operate the pile driver.

The fourth item, represented by a check for $50 (exhibit seven dated July 19, 1962), was said by the grandfather to have been a personal loan, but the grandson claimed that it was a gift.

The fifth matter (the second transaction chronologically) concerned the purchase of a boat by the grandfather for $4800 and the repairs subsequently made thereon totaling $267. The grandson was in the Coast Guard at the time the boat was bought, but he worked in a private boatyard when he was on leave. The grandfather told his grandson on one of his off-duty periods that he wanted to buy a boat to go fishing in and asked him to look for one. Shortly thereafter the grandson found a boat he thought his grandfather should see and the grandfather, after looking it over, purchased the boat. It was paid for by a check (exhibit one dated July 22, 1962) on which the grandfather belatedly wrote 'boat money.' Although he referred to it as 'my boat,' the grandfather caused the boat to be titled in the name of the grandson so that, as the grandfather testified, no one could take it away from him (the grandson) in case he (the grandfather) should die. But, according to the grandson, the boat was so titled because his grandfather had never done anything for him and wanted him to have something. As to this, it was stipulated that if the broker who sold the boat (the broker was also the owner of the marina where the boat was purchased) were called as a witness he would testify that the boat was a gift from the grandfather to the grandson and that he (the broker) made out the application for title in the name of the grandson at the direction of the grandfather. The evidence with respect to who had possession of the boat and as to the use of it from time to time is meager and indefinite. The grandfather testified that the boat was kept in the marina where it was purchased until the grandson and the owner of the marina 'had some words.' When that happened the marina owner ordered the grandson to move the boat and he (the grandson) 'carried it up' Stoney Creek to a wharf near where he resided. The grandfather also testified that he used the boat whenever he wanted it and that he and his friends had gone out on the boat with the grandson 'a couple of times.' While it is likely that the grandson also used the boat whenever he desired, there was no testimony to that effect. The last time that the grandfather used the boat was on a weekend in June of 1963. On that occasion, having discovered that the boat was in bad condition, he docked it on his return at a boatard in Bear Creek to be repaired. But the grandson, although he knew why the boat was placed in dock and that the grandfather intended to pay for the repairs, caused the Coast Guard to remove the boat from the boatyard...