978-1285770178 Case Printout Case CPC-28-06 Part 1

Conn.,2009.

Wasniewski v. Quick and Reilly, Inc.

30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court

30k1008 Conclusiveness in General

30k1008.1 In General

30k1008.1(5) k. Clearly Erroneous Findings. Most Cited Cases

Finding of fact is “clearly erroneous” when there is no evidence in the record to support it or when, though there is

evidence to support it, reviewing court on entire evidence is left with definite and firm conviction that mistake has

been made.

[3] Appeal and Error 30 989

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings

30XVI(I)1 In General

30XVI Review

30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings

30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court

30k1012 Against Weight of Evidence

30k1012.1 In General

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

191k1 k. Nature of Gift in General. Most Cited Cases

“Gift” is transfer of property without consideration.

191k17 Delivery

191k18 Necessity

191k18(2) k. Necessity of Surrendering Control. Most Cited Cases

In order to make a valid gift inter vivos, donor must part with control of property which is subject of the gift with an

intent that title shall pass immediately and irrevocably to donee.

Gifts 191 18(1)

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

[7] Gifts 191 47(1)

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

191k46 Evidence

191I Inter Vivos

191k46 Evidence

191k47 Presumptions and Burden of Proof

191k47(2) k. Delivery and Acceptance. Most Cited Cases

Burden of proving intent and delivery rests upon party claiming a gift.

191k18 Necessity

191k18(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Delivery of possession is the foundation of transfer, of kind required for valid inter vivos gift; without delivery,

191k17 Delivery

191k18 Necessity

191k18(2) k. Necessity of Surrendering Control. Most Cited Cases

In order to constitute a “delivery,” of kind required for valid inter vivos gift, not only must the donor part with pos-

session of property, but he must also relinquish control thereof.

191k18 Necessity

191k18(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Delivery, of kind required for valid inter vivos gift, may be either actual or constructive, and donor need not effect

delivery in any particular form or mode.

For a “constructive delivery” of property that is subject of alleged gift, donor must do that which, under the circum-

stances, will in reason be equivalent to actual delivery; it must be as nearly perfect and complete as nature of proper-

ty and circumstances will permit.

[12] Gifts 191 22

social security number, absent evidence that father ever notified son of existence of account or instructed brokerage

firm to make delivery of funds to son; absent such a showing, there was no constructive delivery of funds to son, and

father retained full control thereof.

[13] Gifts 191 18(2)

third persons who may enforce terms of contract.

95k185 Rights Acquired by Third Persons

95k187 Agreement for Benefit of Third Person

95k187(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Father, simply by depositing funds in brokerage account under name of his son, did not enter into any contract with

brokerage form of which his son was intended third party beneficiary, where record was devoid of evidence that

ROGERS, C.J.

*100 The defendant, Quick and Reilly, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judg-

ment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, James W. Wasniewski. The plaintiff initiated this breach of contract

certified questions in the negative and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The relevant facts, as found by the trial court, are set forth in the majority opinion of the Appellate Court. “The

plaintiff’s father, John Wasniewski, opened a brokerage account with the defendant on November 14, 1989, in the

plaintiff’s name and social security number. The account was funded with the proceeds of $30,000 worth of bonds

tiff’s father.

“The plaintiff commenced a civil action against the defendant by complaint filed August 18, 2004. The plaintiff set

out four causes of action, three of which were dismissed by the court after hearing argument on the defendant’s mo-

tion for summary judgment filed September 2, 2005. The plaintiff‘s breach of contract claim was the only claim re–

maining before the court. In a memorandum of decision filed June 27, 2006, the court, Hon. Robert C. Leuba, judge

trial referee, [found] that the account was owned by the plaintiff from the time it was created and that he was entitled

to the interest and the principal pursuant to the contract implicit in the relationship between a broker and the owner

30k1008 Conclusiveness in General

30k1008.1 In General

30k1008.1(5) k. Clearly Erroneous Findings. Most Cited Cases

Finding of fact is “clearly erroneous” when there is no evidence in the record to support it or when, though there is

evidence to support it, reviewing court on entire evidence is left with definite and firm conviction that mistake has

been made.

[3] Appeal and Error 30 989

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30 Appeal and Error

30XVI Review

30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings

30XVI(I)1 In General

30XVI Review

30XVI(I) Questions of Fact, Verdicts, and Findings

30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court

30k1012 Against Weight of Evidence

30k1012.1 In General

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

191k1 k. Nature of Gift in General. Most Cited Cases

“Gift” is transfer of property without consideration.

191k17 Delivery

191k18 Necessity

191k18(2) k. Necessity of Surrendering Control. Most Cited Cases

In order to make a valid gift inter vivos, donor must part with control of property which is subject of the gift with an

intent that title shall pass immediately and irrevocably to donee.

Gifts 191 18(1)

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

[7] Gifts 191 47(1)

191 Gifts

191I Inter Vivos

191k46 Evidence

191I Inter Vivos

191k46 Evidence

191k47 Presumptions and Burden of Proof

191k47(2) k. Delivery and Acceptance. Most Cited Cases

Burden of proving intent and delivery rests upon party claiming a gift.

191k18 Necessity

191k18(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Delivery of possession is the foundation of transfer, of kind required for valid inter vivos gift; without delivery,

191k17 Delivery

191k18 Necessity

191k18(2) k. Necessity of Surrendering Control. Most Cited Cases

In order to constitute a “delivery,” of kind required for valid inter vivos gift, not only must the donor part with pos-

session of property, but he must also relinquish control thereof.

191k18 Necessity

191k18(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Delivery, of kind required for valid inter vivos gift, may be either actual or constructive, and donor need not effect

delivery in any particular form or mode.

For a “constructive delivery” of property that is subject of alleged gift, donor must do that which, under the circum-

stances, will in reason be equivalent to actual delivery; it must be as nearly perfect and complete as nature of proper-

ty and circumstances will permit.

[12] Gifts 191 22

social security number, absent evidence that father ever notified son of existence of account or instructed brokerage

firm to make delivery of funds to son; absent such a showing, there was no constructive delivery of funds to son, and

father retained full control thereof.

[13] Gifts 191 18(2)

third persons who may enforce terms of contract.

95k185 Rights Acquired by Third Persons

95k187 Agreement for Benefit of Third Person

95k187(1) k. In General. Most Cited Cases

Father, simply by depositing funds in brokerage account under name of his son, did not enter into any contract with

brokerage form of which his son was intended third party beneficiary, where record was devoid of evidence that

ROGERS, C.J.

*100 The defendant, Quick and Reilly, Inc., appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judg-

ment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, James W. Wasniewski. The plaintiff initiated this breach of contract

certified questions in the negative and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The relevant facts, as found by the trial court, are set forth in the majority opinion of the Appellate Court. “The

plaintiff’s father, John Wasniewski, opened a brokerage account with the defendant on November 14, 1989, in the

plaintiff’s name and social security number. The account was funded with the proceeds of $30,000 worth of bonds

tiff’s father.

“The plaintiff commenced a civil action against the defendant by complaint filed August 18, 2004. The plaintiff set

out four causes of action, three of which were dismissed by the court after hearing argument on the defendant’s mo-

tion for summary judgment filed September 2, 2005. The plaintiff‘s breach of contract claim was the only claim re–

maining before the court. In a memorandum of decision filed June 27, 2006, the court, Hon. Robert C. Leuba, judge

trial referee, [found] that the account was owned by the plaintiff from the time it was created and that he was entitled

to the interest and the principal pursuant to the contract implicit in the relationship between a broker and the owner