1) What is the distinction between real property and personal property? Is air c

Question

1) What is the distinction between real property and personal property? Is air conditioning real property of personal property?

2) Read In re Estate of Piper on pages 924-925.

a) Why did Clara Kaufman feel she was entitled to $4,800 from Piper's estate? Was she?
Why or why not?
b) Why did Clara Kaufman feel she was entitled to the two diamond rings from the Piper estate? Was she? Why or why not?

3) If you found $5,000 in an unmarked paper bag in the street, what should you do with it
(legally)?

In re Estate of Pipeir Missouri Court of Appeals, 676 S.W.2d 897 (1984) Background and Facts Gladys Piper died intestate (without a will). At the time of her death, she owned miscellaneous personal property worth $5,150 and had in diamond rings. Wanda Brown, Piper's niece, took the contents of her purse, allegedly to preserve 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 her purse $206.75 in cash and two 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. Kauffrnan 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 Piper's estate-appealed In the Language of the Court GREENE, Judge While no particular form is necessary to effect a delkvery, and while the delivery may be actual, cor- structive, or symbolical, there must be some evidence to support a delivery theory. What we have here, at best, was an intention on the part of Gladys, at some future time, to make a gift of the rings to Clara. Such an intention, no matter how clearly expressed, which has not been carried into effect, com fers no ownership rights in the property in the intended donee. Language written or spoken, expresing to give, does not constitute a gif, unless the intention is executed by a complete and uncondi- tional delivery of the subject matter, or delivery ofa proper written instrument evidencing the gi" no evidence in this case to prove delivery, and, for such reason, the trial court's judgment is erroneous [Emphasis added.] Decision and Remedy The judgment of the trial court was reversed. No effective gift of the rings been made, because Piper had never delivered the rings to Kauffman. Impact of This Case on Today's Law This classic case clearly illustrates the delivery requr making a gift. Assuming that Piper did, indeed, intend for Kauffman to have the rings, it was un that Kauffman had no right to receive them after Piper's death. Yet the alternative might lead to unfairness. The policy behind the delivery requirement is to protect alleged donors and their heirs fraudulent claims based solely on parol evidence. lf not for this policy an alleaed donee could eas that a gift had been made when, in fact, it had not. requirement for

Explanation / Answer

Real property is any kind of attachment to the land, and is essentially immovable. Personal property on the other hand is movable property and anything which is subject to ownership. Personal property includes possessions of all kinds provided that they are movable and can be owned by someone. Movable items which come under the Ambit of personal property or sometimes referred to as chattels. Personal property may include tangible as well as intangible items. The major difference between the two is that real property needs to be fixed permanently to one location and cannot be moved. Air conditioning is personal property as it is movable on its own and subject to ownership by the person purchasing it. In spite of it being attached to a building fixed to the land, it is itself not fixed permanently and immovable.

2a) Clara Kaufman said she was entitled to dollar 4800 from Piper's estate as she had served Piper for 8 years by taking care of her by helping her payables as well as assisting her entering for home and accompaning her to the doctor, beauty shop and grocery store. For these services rendered, she expected a reasonable sum of Dollar 50 per month to be paid to her from the estate of the deceased. Clara was not entitled to the sum of money as any services or help she had offered was in the capacity of a friend and not as employed help. If she expected to be paid for her services a contract should have been in place as acceptance by Gladys Piper, that she was able and willing to pay such monthly sum of money for the services rendered, is essential for an employment contract to be valid. Only the deceased was capable of deciding the value of the services rendered to her and weather she was willing to pay for the same.

b) Clara Kaufman felt she was entitled to the two diamond rings as Gladys Piper had promised the Rings to her as a gift in exchange for the services rendered by Clara. The only evidence available to justify the claim was through two witnesses who testified that Gladys Piper had mentioned to them that the Rings would be gifted to Clara after she was done with them. However, the legal aspect to every gift requires that a delivery be affected y the person gifting is alive to be sure of the intent to actually gift the item, it is essential that a donee to a gift prove that the Donor had a clear intention to make the gift and a delivery of the property was effected by the donor and an acceptance of the same was made by the donee, thereby the ownership having immediately and absolutely been transferred to the donee. In this case the intention we have been proven through the testimony of the witnesses but no delivery was effected, resulting in ownership remaining with Gladys Piper. Therefore, Clara kaufman was not entitled to the diamond rings.

3) Lost, or abandoned personal property or chattel, which is no longer in the possession of its rightful owner, when found by another individual who has no right of ownership over the lost property is entitled to hold the property until and unless the original owner comes forward to claim it and proves his ownership. An individual may handover search property to a law enforcement agency if they so desire. I would hold the bag with dollar 5, 000 with me, and wait for the true owner to come forward and prove ownership.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 1
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.