Gift of an interest in real property; Requirements for a valid gift; Intent; Partition; Determination that each party owned a 50% interest in the property

The court held that the trial court did not err in determining that plaintiff-father intended to gift a one-half undivided interest in the real property at issue to defendant-son, in awarding each party 50% equity in the property, and in ordering defendant to pay plaintiff $140,105 for his interest in it. The only element of a valid gift that was at issue was intent. Plaintiff testified that “he told defendant he was advancing the money for the following reason: ‘I said that maybe I have a chance to do something for you now. We didn’t get along 10 or 11 years ago. Let’s try that again. I’d like to help you.’” He further testified that a few days after that, “he told defendant he should purchase the home so he could start a new life with his family. Plaintiff testified that all of the reasons he provided were positive and that ‘[i]t was a very fatherly situation.’” The court found that this testimony showed “that because he had an estranged relationship for most of defendant’s life, he wanted to do something to help defendant without expecting anything in return, which is evidence that plaintiff intended to transfer title of the property gratuitously to defendant.” Thus, the trial court did not clearly err in determining that plaintiff intended to gift defendant a one-half undivided interest in the property. He “intended to transfer title of the property gratuitously to defendant, there was delivery of the property, and defendant accepted the gift.” Thus, he could not revoke the gift after deciding “he no longer wanted to have a ‘financial connection’ with defendant.” Plaintiff next argued that the trial court should have found that he owned 100% of the equity in the property and ordered that he owned it or that it be sold and he receive all of the proceeds. Alternatively, he contended “the trial court should have found that each party owned 50% equity and ordered that the property be sold, that the proceeds be divided equally, and that defendant pay plaintiff $140,105 from his proceeds.” But the court found no error, noting that while they “owned the property as tenants in common, because neither the purchase agreement nor the warranty deed stated the interest each party would take, i.e., their proportional share, there was a rebuttable presumption that” each owned a 50% equitable interest in the property. Affirmed.