King v. Trustees of BU - Brief

King v. Trustees of Boston University COURT AND DATE: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (1995) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Trial court: denied plaintiff’s motion for judgement notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial Supreme court of mass: affirmed ISSUE: Is a charitable pledge enforceable if there is a promise to give property to a charitable institution and consideration or reliance on the promise? TRIGGER FACTS: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. made the decision to deposit correspondence, manuscripts, other papers, some of his awards, and other materials with the Trustees of Boston University (BU) (defendant). Accompanying the deposit was a letter. The letter stated: “I intend each year to indicate a portion of the materials deposited with [BU] to become the absolute property of [BU] as an outright gift from me, until all shall have been thus given to [BU]. In the event of my death, all such materials deposited with [BU] shall become from that date the absolute property of [BU].” When the materials were deposited, BU indexed the papers, made them available to researchers, and hired trained staff to take care of the papers and assist researchers. BU also held a ceremony for the receipt of the papers. Dr. King spoke at the ceremony about why he placed those papers in BU’s custody. Upon Dr. King’s death, his wife (Mrs. King) (plaintiff), as administratrix of his estate, sought the return of the materials from BU. Mrs. King filed suit. At trial, the jury determined that King made a charitable pledge to BU. Mrs. King filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion. Mrs. King appealed directly to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. PLAINTIFF’S MAIN ARGUMENTS: DEFENDANT’S MAIN ARGUMENTS: RULE (the law): A charitable pledge is enforceable if there is a promise to give property to a charitable institution and consideration or reliance on the promise. HOLDING + REASONING: Yes. A charitable pledge is “an oral or written promise to do certain acts or to give real or personal property to a charity or for a charitable purpose.” In order for a charitable pledge to be enforceable, the following must be established: (1) a promise to give property to a charitable institution and (2) consideration or reliance on the promise. The first element requires scrutiny of the promisor's donative intent. Donative intent may be evidenced by a bailment, i.e., if one party delivers personalty to another party for a particular purpose, or if property is deposited with another party upon an express or implied agreement that after the purpose has been fulfilled, the other party will return the property or otherwise deal with the property pursuant to the first party's instructions or keep it until it is reclaimed. A bailee is required to tend to the personalty with “scrupulous care.” Additionally, although the statute of wills generally requires a testamentary disposition to be witnessed by two or more competent witnesses, the statute of wills does not prevent someone from making a contract or promise regarding a disposition of property that will take place at his death. In this case, the first sentence at issue in Dr. King's letter is evidence of a bailment. By the terms of the first sentence, Dr. King's items were placed in BU’s custody until otherwise indicated. This is sufficient evidence of donative intent to submit to the jury the question of whether there was consideration or reliance on the promise. Additionally, even though the second sentence at issue indicates that Dr. King’s promise will not take effect until his death, it does not make the letter a will, and the promise may still be enforceable. Regarding reliance, BU indexed Dr. King's papers, made them available to researchers, and hired trained staff to take care of the papers and assist researchers. BU also held a ceremony for receipt of the papers, at which Dr. King spoke about why he placed the papers in BU’s custody. Because BU was a bailee, it was required to act with “scrupulous care.” However, BU’s actions are evidence that it went above and beyond that duty and, therefore, that its actions constituted consideration or reliance on Dr. King’s promise to transfer the papers to BU. Accordingly, the evidence indicates that there could have been a charitable pledge and, therefore, that this case was properly submitted to the jury.