20 N.Y.3d 50 (2012)
r
r
A valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery (actual or constructive), and acceptance, all provable by clear and convincing evidence; possession of the gift instrument by the donee after the donor’s death creates a presumption of delivery, which the opposing party must overcome with a triable issue of fact.
r
r
Summary
r
David Mirvish sued Hanno Mott, executor of Yulia Lipchitz’s estate, to claim ownership of “The Cry,” a sculpture allegedly gifted to Biond Fury (Mirvish’s assignor) by Lipchitz. The Surrogate’s Court initially ruled in favor of Mirvish, but the Appellate Division reversed, citing the statute of limitations and the Dead Man’s Statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the handwritten gift instrument found in Fury’s possession created a presumption of delivery, and the estate failed to raise a triable issue of fact to rebut this presumption. The court also emphasized that Mott, by entering a settlement agreement, conceded the Surrogate Court’s authority to determine ownership on the merits, overriding any statute of limitations argument.
r
r
Facts
r
Yulia Lipchitz gifted a sculpture, “The Cry,” to her companion, Biond Fury, memorializing the gift with a signed note. After Yulia’s death, her son, Hanno Mott, acting as executor, loaned the sculpture to the French government. Fury later sold his interest in “The Cry” to David Mirvish. Mott then purportedly sold the sculpture, but later inquired with the French government about their interest in purchasing it. Mirvish sued Mott, claiming ownership of the sculpture based on the gift to Fury.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Mott initiated an action in Surrogate’s Court to determine the estate’s ownership of “The Cry.” Mirvish then sued Mott in Surrogate’s Court, alleging conversion and seeking delivery of the sculpture. The Surrogate’s Court initially ordered Mott to escrow $1 million from the purported sale of “The Cry”. After “The Cry” was returned from Switzerland, Mirvish withdrew his conversion and replevin claims. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to Mirvish, finding a valid gift. The Appellate Division reversed, declaring Mirvish’s claims time-barred. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether Yulia Lipchitz made a valid inter vivos gift of “The Cry” to Biond Fury.
r
2. Whether, even if the statute of limitations for conversion and replevin claims has lapsed, the estate can secure possession of the sculpture where Mott agreed that Surrogate’s Court would decide ownership on the merits.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because Yulia’s intent was clear from the gift instrument, Fury accepted the gift, and Fury’s possession of the gift instrument after Yulia’s death created a presumption of delivery that the estate failed to overcome.
r
2. No, because Mott, on behalf of the estate, agreed to have the Surrogate’s Court determine ownership on the merits, effectively waiving the statute of limitations defense.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals relied on Gruen v. Gruen, reiterating that a valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance, proven by clear and convincing evidence. The court found Yulia’s intent clear from the gift instrument. Fury’s possession of the instrument created a presumption of delivery under Sofsky v. Rosenberg, which the estate failed to rebut with a triable issue of fact. The court stated, “[Mott] has not raised a triable issue of fact so as to overcome the presumption of delivery; Mirvish has established each of the elements of a valid inter vivos gift—intent, delivery and acceptance—by clear and convincing evidence.” The court further reasoned that Mott, by entering into a settlement agreement, conceded that the Surrogate’s Court would determine ownership on the merits. To allow the estate to benefit from a statute of limitations defense after agreeing to a determination on the merits would be inequitable and contrary to the parties’ intent. The Court emphasized, “[U]nder the settlement agreement, the estate cannot secure possession of “The Cry” without a final judicial determination of ownership in its favor.”