Snyder v. Stouffer

• Decision Date: 03 January 1974
• Docket Number: No. 125,125
• Citation: 313 A.2d 497,270 Md. 647
• Parties: George G. SNYDER v. Steven D. STOUFFER.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 647

270 Md. 647

313 A.2d 497

George G. SNYDER v. Steven D. STOUFFER.

No. 125.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 3, 1974.

Norman I. Broadwater, Hagerstown, on brief, for appellant.

Elwood E. Hauver, Hagerstown, on brief, for appellee.

Submitted to MURPHY, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

The appellant Snyder was appointed Assignee for the benefit of the unsecured creditors of Herman Stouffer and his wife, Martha (the Stouffers), Holiday Acres, Inc. (Holiday), and Colonial Acres, Inc., corporations owned by the Stouffers. On December 28, 1972, he filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Washington County to sell assets of Holiday identified as a number of gold coins held in a safe deposit box in a Pennsylvania bank, allegedly registered in Holiday's name. The court passed an order on that date allowing the sale, and the coins were sold at public auction on February 23, 1973. On February 26, 1973, the Stouffers' son, the appellee Steven Stouffer, filed a petition praying that the sale of the coins not be ratified; he claimed that he was the owner of the coins and that they be declared his exclusive property and returned to him; that, in the alternative, he be paid the proceeds of the sale and that the appellant be enjoined from delivering the coins until the issue of their ownership had been resolved. The court ordered Snyder to retain possession of the coins and trial was held on March 9, 1973. The evidence showed that the appellee was twenty years of age at the time of trial, that he had been an avid coin collector since his early youth, that his parents did not collect coins, and that Holiday was not in the business of coin collecting. The appellee, Mrs. Stouffer, and several other witnesses testified that the coins were given to the appellee on two occasions-the first at Christmastime, 1963, and the second on his birthday in March, 1964. Mrs. Stouffer testified that some of the coins were placed in the safe deposit box within a month after Christmas and that the remainder of the coins were placed in the box a 'couple of weeks' after his birthday. The testimony revealed that for a brief period after receiving the coins, the appellee kept them in his room and was in the habit of showing them to his friends. Mrs. Stouffer testified that she didn't 'think it was good to have . . . (the coins) . . . around the house' and that she put them in the safe deposit box because the family was 'gone a good bit of the time' and the coins could be stolen. She also testified that she and her husband had paid for the rental of the safe deposit box. The court found that the Stouffers made gifts of the coins to their son at Christmastime, 1963, and on his birthday in March, 1964, that delivery of the coins was completed on these two occasions, and that the appellee was in possession of the coins for 'some period of time thereafter.' The court also concluded that the Stouffers were 'merely acting for their minor son' in placing the coins in the safe deposit box for safekeeping and that they did not retain dominion over the coins in 'any legal sense.' The court ordered Snyder either to deliver the coins to the appellee or consummate the sale held on February 23 and deliver the proceeds to him. Snyder appealed to this Court from that judgment.

The appellant argues that the Stouffers' failure to relinquish their control over the coins precluded a valid inter vivos gift to their son. He notes that although there were two keys to the safe deposit box, the appellee did not possess either of them. He argues that no evidence of the donors' intent at the time the coins came into appellee's possession was adduced at trial, and '(W)hatever it might have been, the evidence is that dominion over the same was not relinquished by the donor.'

Appellee argues that the court was correct in finding a completed gift with the delivery of the coins to him in December, 1963 and March, 1964, and that the return of the coins to his parents for safekeeping did not affect his title thereto but rather gave rise to a trust relationship in his favor.

The requirements for a valid inter vivos gift are well-established under Maryland law. In Berman v. Leckner, 193 Md. 177, 182, 66 A.2d 392, 393 (1949), we stated:

'To make a valid gift inter vivos, there must be a clear intention on the part of the donor to transfer title to the property, and also a delivery by the donor and an acceptance by the donee. It is essential to the validity of such a gift that the transfer of both possession and title shall be absolute and shall go into immediate effect. In other words, the donor must intend not only to deliver possession, but also to relinquish the right of...