Gaden v. Gaden, 29 N.Y.2d 80 (1971)
A transfer of property between former spouses, even after a divorce, can be considered a gift made in contemplation of marriage (remarriage) and thus recoverable under Civil Rights Law § 80-b if the remarriage does not occur.
Summary
Following a divorce, a husband transferred a half-interest in the family home to his former wife. The parties intended to remarry, but the remarriage never occurred. The husband then sought to recover the transferred interest under Civil Rights Law § 80-b, arguing it was a gift made in contemplation of marriage. The trial court granted the husband’s claim, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the transfer was indeed a gift made in contemplation of marriage and was therefore recoverable because the contemplated marriage did not occur, regardless of fault.
Facts
The Gadens were married, divorced, and then resumed cohabitation. During the period of cohabitation after their divorce, the husband conveyed a one-half interest in their home to the wife. Both parties contemplated remarriage. However, the couple never remarried and ultimately separated. The husband claimed he transferred the property solely in contemplation of remarriage.
Procedural History
The husband sued to recover the one-half interest in the home, asserting it was a gift made in contemplation of marriage under Civil Rights Law § 80-b. The trial court ruled in favor of the husband. The Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, reinstating the trial court’s judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the transfer of a property interest from a former spouse to another, during a period of cohabitation following a divorce, can be considered a “gift made in contemplation of marriage” under Civil Rights Law § 80-b, and thus recoverable when the contemplated marriage does not occur.
Holding
Yes, because the transfer of a half-interest in the family dwelling was considered a gift in sole consideration of a ceremonial remarriage, even after a decade of marriage, separation, and divorce. The gift is recoverable under Civil Rights Law § 80-b because the contemplated marriage did not take place.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals interpreted Civil Rights Law § 80-b to allow recovery of gifts made in contemplation of marriage when the marriage does not occur, regardless of which party is at fault for the failure to marry. The court reasoned that the statute’s purpose is to prevent unjust enrichment when a marriage fails after a gift has been given in anticipation of it. The court stated, “[t]he issue of fault, relevant at common law, has been eliminated by the statute.” The court found that the husband’s transfer of the property interest to the wife was indeed a gift made in contemplation of marriage, based on the circumstances and the husband’s stated intent. The dissent argued that applying the statute to a couple with a long history, including marriage, divorce, and cohabitation, distorts the legislative intent behind the statute. The dissent further contended that the transfer was more akin to a resumption of marital relations than a gift in contemplation of marriage, noting the husband’s testimony that he wanted the home in both their names to demonstrate his good faith in rebuilding their marriage. Judge Breitel in dissent stated that the words of the statute “may fit, but the picture portrayed does not.” He further argued that “the statutory language referring to ‘sole consideration’ for the ‘gift’ is distorted to elide so substantial a legal and economic consideration as an equally shared obligation on the purchase-money obligation and mortgage.”