Help me brief this case pls CASE 48.2 In re Estate of Piper Missouri Court of Ap
ID: 375939 • Letter: H
Question
Help me brief this case pls
CASE 48.2 In re Estate of Piper Missouri Court of Appeals, 676 S.W.2d 897 (1984) BACKGROUND AND FACTS Gladys Piper died intestate (without a wil), At the time of her death, she owned miscellaneous personal property worth S5,150 and had in her purse $206.75 in cash and two diamond rings Wanda Brown, Pipers niece, took the contents of her purse, allegedly to pre- serve the items for the estate. Clara Kauffman, a friend of Gladys Piper, filed a claim against the estate for $4,800. For several years before Piper's death, Kauffman had taken Piper to the doctor, beauty salon and grocery store. She had also written Piper's checks to pay her bills and helped her care for her home Kauffman maintained that Piper had promised to pay her for these services and that Piper had given her the diamond rings as a gift. The trial court denied Kauffman's request for payment of $4,800 on the basis that the services had been voluntary Kauffman then filed a petition for delivery of personal property the rings), which was granted by the trial court. The defendants-Piper's heirs and the administrator of Pipers estate--appea aled IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE COURT GREENE, Judge. While no particular form is necessary to effect a delivery, and while the delivery may be actual, constructive, or symbolical, there must be some evidence to support a delivery theoryExplanation / Answer
The case is a situation where there is no will and then there are multiple claims to the assets of the dead person from multiple parties. Gladys Piper died without creating a will and then third parties, like Wanda Brown, Piper’s niece took possession of items such as cash and diamond rings. The other party, Clara Kauffman, soon entered into the case and claimed her right on Gladys belongings especially the rings as a compensation in lieu of her taking care of Gladys and spent money towards services like medical, personal care, etc.
The court ruling said that there has to be a written, explicit record where a person transfers his/her assets to a party for it to be considered as a gift, so Kaufman’s claims could not be substantiated. The case is about ownership of the assets without a will and consideration of gifts as claimed by third parties.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.