Gruen v. Gruen New York Court of Appeals, 1986. Facts: Victor Gruen sent a series of letters to his son, Michael (plaintiff), indicating his intention to give Michael a valuable painting for his 21st birthday. Victor did not deliver the painting but kept it in his multiple residences. The painting was to be given to Michael upon Victor’s death, with Victor holding a life estate in the painting. Michael acknowledged the gift to his friends and associates and held both letters for over 17 years to verify the gift after his father's death. Upon Victor’s death, Victor’s wife and Michael’s stepmother, Ms. Gruen (defendant), refused to give Michael the painting. Michael then brought this action. Procedural History: The special term court determined that by retaining a life estate in the painting, Victor invalidated the gift. Michael appealed. The Appellate Division found that a gift is valid even if a life estate is retained in the gift. Ms. Gruen petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York. Issue: If a grantor retains a life estate in the gift of a chattel does that destroy the first requirement of an inter vivos gift? Holding: No. Reasoning: To make a valid inter vivos gift, (1) the donor must intend to make a present transfer, (2) either actual or constructive delivery of the gift must occur, and (3) the donee must accept the gift. The proponent of the gift must provide clear and convincing evidence of each element. Regarding the first element, the donor must seek to make an irrevocable present transfer. If the donor's intention is to make a testamentary disposition effective only after death, the gift is invalid unless made by a will. Under the second element, either physical delivery of the subject of the gift or a constructive or symbolic delivery is sufficient to divest the donor of ownership of the property. Regarding the third element, if a gift is of value to the donee, the law presumes an acceptance on the donee's part. Here, the lower court properly found that Michael provided clear and convincing evidence for each element. Victor's letters established an intent to make a present transfer of the painting on Michael's 21st birthday. The fact that the painting wasn't physically delivered does not matter; Victor's letters gave Michael title to the painting with a right of possession upon his death. Michael acknowledged the gift to his friends and associates and that he both letters for over 17 years to verify the gift after his father's death. This also demonstrates that the gift was of value to Michael. Since there was a valid inter vivos gift, Michael is entitled to the painting. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed.