FRANK WELCH, APPELLANT.
v.
VERONICA DECECCO, INDIVIDUALLY, ETC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Frank Welch appealed a probate court's determination that ExxonMobil stocks had not been gifted to him by his uncle during the uncle's lifetime and therefore belonged to the uncle's estate. The appellate court reversed and remanded because it was unclear whether the trial court had considered all relevant evidence in making its decision about donative intent.
Stock registration is a proper consideration in analyzing donative intent but is not dispositive when other evidence regarding donative intent is presented. The trial court must clarify on remand whether it considered all relevant evidence or focused exclusively on stock registration.
[1] The elements of an inter vivos gift are present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.
[2] Stock registration in the donor's name at the time of death is a relevant factor in determining donative intent for an inter vivos gift, but it is not necessarily disposi…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The elements of an inter vivos gift are present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.”
Establishes the legal standard for proving an inter vivos gift
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFrank Welch's uncle, Frank Kolbl, allegedly made an inter vivos gift of ExxonMobil stocks to Welch. The stocks remained registered in Kolbl's name at …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Delivery cases and more on FLexlaw
In this probate matter, Frank Welch appeals the trial court’s order determining that ExxonMobil stocks had not been transferred to him by his uncle, Frank Kolbl, via inter vivos gift and, thus, belonged to Kolbl’s estate. Because it is unclear from the order whether the court considered all the relevant evidence in arriving at this ruling, we reverse and remand for the trial court to clarify the basis of its ruling.
The elements of an inter vivos gift are present donative intent, delivery, and acceptance. See Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So.2d 57, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Here, the trial court concluded that Welch failed to prove present donative intent, and that the evidence showed, at best, a failed testamentary intent. The court cited the fact that the stocks were still registered in Kolbl’s name at his death. Although stock registration is properly considered in analyzing donative intent, it is not necessarily dispositive where, as here, other evidence is presented for and against such intent. See id. at 59-60, 62; Freedman v. Freedman, 345 So.2d 834, 836-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Sullivan v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 230 So.2d 18, 18-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Kuebler v. Kuebler, 131 So.2d 211, 212-16, 218-19 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961); Eulette v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Beane, 101 So.2d 603, 604-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958). It is unclear from the trial court’s order whether the court focused exclusively on the stock registration, or properly considered it as one fact along with all the other evidence relevant to donative intent.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand this matter for the trial court to clarify whether it considered all the relevant evidence, and if not, to reconsider its ruling on the basis of the evidence presented.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.W.Q. v. A.B., 200 So. 3d 87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…ep’t of HRS, 670 So. 2d 1191, 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court should clarify whether it considered all the relevant evidence and, if it did not, reconsider the ruling on the basis of the evidence presented. See Welch v. Dececco, 101 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (reversing and remanding “this matter for the trial court to clarify whether it considered all the relevant evidence, and if not, to reconsider its ruling on the basis of the evidence presented”). REVERSED and REMANDED with…
Authorities Cited
- Eulette v. Merrill, 101 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Kuebler v. Kuebler, 131 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Sullivan v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., Inc., 230 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- Carlile v. Dreyer, 131 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Freedman v. Freedman, 345 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Mulato v. Mulato, 705 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)