In Re Estate of Evans Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1976. Facts: Arthur Evans was in and out of the hospital in the months leading to his death. Vivian Kellow (plaintiff), the niece of Evans’s deceased wife, cared for Evans until he died. About one month prior to his death, Evans had a friend drive him to the bank to obtain the keys to his safe-deposit box. Evans gave the keys to Kellow and told her that the contents of the box were hers. Evans also told other people that he had given the contents of the box to Kellow. Kellow told other people the same and actually showed other people the keys, which she had placed under her mattress. The safe-deposit box remained registered in Evans’s name. Upon Evans’s death, Kellow relinquished the keys to the bank while claiming that the contents of the box had been given to her. Procedural History: At trial, Kellow claimed that the contents of the box were hers. The lower court ruled that a valid inter vivos gift had not occurred. As a result, the court included the contents of the safe-deposit box in Evans’s estate. Kellow appealed. Issue: Is an inter vivos gift valid unless the donor divests himself of complete dominion and control over the gift? Holding: No, an inter vivos gift is not valid unless the donor divests himself of complete dominion and control over the gift. Reasoning: An inter vivos gift is not valid unless the donor divests himself of complete dominion and control over the gift. To constitute a valid inter vivos gift, there must be donative intent and delivery. Absent the divestment of dominion and control there is no delivery. Constructive or symbolic delivery may be sufficient, however, in certain circumstances in which actual delivery is impractical. In this case, the trial court did not err by finding that an inter vivos gift did not occur. Although constructive or symbolic delivery may be sufficient to constitute delivery of an inter vivos gift, this is not such a case. The safe-deposit box remained registered in Evans’s name until his death. In fact, even with possession of the key, Kellow could not have obtained the contents of the box from the bank. Thus, even if constructive delivery of the contents of a safe-deposit box could suffice in certain circumstances, such constructive delivery has not occurred in this case. Evans did not divest himself of complete dominion and control over the contents of the safe-deposit box. Accordingly, there was no inter vivos gift to Kellow, and the contents were properly included in Evans’s estate. The judgment is affirmed Dissent: There is no question that Evans intended a gift to Kellow and believed that he had completed the gift. Evans’s giving of the key to Kellow and informing Kellow and others that the contents of the box were hers should be sufficient to constitute a valid inter vivos gift.