Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Conn.,2009.
Wasniewski v. Quick and Reilly, Inc.
30XVI(I)3 Findings of Court
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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.
© 2009 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
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
