Legal Language Project.docx

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA PROJECT TITLE USAGE OF LEGAL MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS

SUBJECT LEGAL LANGUAGE

NAME OF THE FACULTY Dr. ARUNA MA’AM NAME- SHLOKA DIKSHIT ROLL NO.- 2019LLB052 SEMESTER-2ND

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-

I would like to thank Dr. Aruna ma’am for giving me an opportunity for deeply studying about women status in India. This project is a result of dedicated effort. It gives me immense pleasure to prepare this project report on “Usage of latin maxims in case laws”. My deepest thanks to our Lecturer ARUNA MA’AM the guide of the project for guiding and correcting various documents with attention and care. I thank him for consultative help and constructive suggestion in this project. I would also like to thank my parents and colleagues who have helped me for making the project a successful one.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 2

CONTENTS1.COVER PAGE 2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3.PROJECT SUMMARY 4.OBJECTIVE OF STUDY 5.SIGNIFICANCE AND BENEFIT OF STUDY 6.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 7. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 8. LITERATURE REVIEW 9. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 10. HYPOTHESIS 11. BODY OF THE PROJECT 12. OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT 13. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

CONTENTS UNDER THE BODY OF THE PROJECT1. Introduction 2. Lis pendens 3. Forum non conveniens USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 3

4. Inter vivos

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDYHerein the researcher through this project is trying to highlight the usage of latin maxims in case laws taking into account three latin maxims i.e. lis pendens, forum non conveniens, inter vivos. USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 4



To understand the meaning associated with the maxims



To understand the applicability of the concept



To know the difficulty associated with the concept.



To explain cases with respect to the applicability of the said maxims.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYThe research was helpful in gaining knowledge about the meaning and usage of latin maxims in the administration of justice. It also helps to study different case laws by which the concept has been evolved. Different types of remedies for jurisdiction and contract can be understood from this study. SCOPE OF THE STUDYThe researcher is limiting the scope only up to the three usage of latin maxims. The three latin maxims are: 

Lis pendens



Forum non conveniens



Inter vivos

REVIEW OF LITERATUREThis research paper is prepared by referring many books, articles from magazines, journals, newspaper, internet sources etc. RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThis is a doctrinal research. RESEARCH QUESTION Whether legal language and legal maxims have applicability in today’s court of law. HYPOTHESIS

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 5

In the modern day and age, the use of legal maxims as fundamental rules of law and moral philosophy in legal cases while deciding cases and writing judgements has not lost its value and is still very much applicable in the court of law today.

ABSTRACT

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 6

This project explains the applicability of legal maxims in Indian and foreign cases in the court of law today. So the researcher will pick three legal maxims and explain them. Then the researcher will find out three cases where each of the maxims have been used separately. The three maxims are lis pendens, forum non conveniens and inter vivos. The first maxim i.e. lis pendens literally means that a lawsuit pending elsewhere. Pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens when two courts have been seized of the same dispute, the court seized second should decline jurisdiction and let the court seized first decide the dispute. It was used in the case Attorney-General v. Mobil Oil NZ Ltd. The second maxim i.e. forum non conveniens is a legal term allows courts that have jurisdiction over a case to remain or dismiss the case upon a determination that the case could also be heard more appropriately in another court. The court is given substantial discretion in determining whether a more appropriate forum exists and if so, whether to remain or dismiss in favor of that other court. It was used in the case of Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation. The third maxim is a phrase i.e. Inter vivos which literally means between living people. Inter vivos is a legal term pertaining to a transfer or gift made during one's lifetime, as against a testamentary transfer under the topic of trust. It was used in the case of Barabara Hertzberg. The circumstances under which all the legal maxims have been used will be analysed. Application of legal maxims in the judgements is the focal point of this project.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 7

INTRODUCTION Latin maxims are principles of law which have to be adhered to while administering of justice. They bare basically universal basic principles of law and moral philosophy, which everyone in the legal maxims are aware of. The Latin term, apparently a variant on maxima, has not been found in Roman law with any meaning exactly analogous thereto of a legal maxim within the Medieval or modern sense of the word, but the treatises of the many Roman jurists on Regular definitions, and Sententiae juris are, in some measure, collections of maxims. Most of the Latin maxims developed at the time of Medieval era in European countries that used Latin as their language for law and courts. Three Latin maxims will be elaborated upon along with their usage in case laws. 1. Lis pendens Lis pendens literally means that a lawsuit pending elsewhere. Pursuant to the doctrine of lis pendens when two courts have been seized of the same dispute, the court seized second should decline jurisdiction and let the court seized first decide the dispute. The only factor considered to decide which of the two courts should retain jurisdiction is the time factor: the court seized second must decline jurisdiction irrespective of any other consideration such as the connections of the case with its jurisdiction or the convenience of the parties.1 One can make a plausible case that lis alibi pendens may qualify as a general principle of law, recognized by most legal systems. The widespread use and similarity of the concept of lis pendens in the national procedural laws of States of all legal traditions as well as its inclusion in a number of bi- and multilateral agreements is evidence that lis pendens can be regarded as a general principle of law in the sense of Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. lis alibi pendens is a doctrine which relates to the good order of judicial proceedings is common to all the major legal systems and may properly be applied by a tribunal in any legal system, including the international legal system, in the exercise of the tribunal’s competence to regulate its own proceedings.

1

See R. Bergsieker, International Tribunals and Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, 114 YALE L.J. 443, at 444.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 8

Since the jurisdiction of all international tribunals ultimately flows from a treaty between States, the tribunal is obliged to take into account other rules of international law in interpretation of the treaty , or, to adopt the dictum of Verzijl, “[e]very international convention must be deemed tacitly to refer to general principles of international law for all questions which it does not itself resolve in express terms and in a different way”. Further, the existence or application of such a rule was generally acknowledged in the few cases where lis pendens claims were made before international courts or tribunals. Even in the absence of specific EC Treaty provisions, the ECJ has nevertheless applied the principle of lis pendens in its judicial practice.2 The ECJ held the applicability of lis pendens basing upon three elements, namely: 1. Same Parties 2. Same Subject-matter 3. Same Grounds The case of Attorney-General v. Mobil Oil NZ Ltd.3 provides an example of a domestic court respecting the Centre’s exclusive right to determine its own jurisdiction. In this case the New Zealand government instituted parallel proceedings before its own domestic courts in order to obtain an interim injunction seeking to restrain Mobil Oil from continuing the proceedings before ICSID. Basing its decision, inter alia, on Art. 26 of the ICSID Convention, the New Zealand High Court stayed the proceedings until the ICSID Tribunal had determined its jurisdiction in Mobil Oil v. New Zealand.4 The resolution of conflicts concerning the allocation of regulatory (or jurisdictional) authority tends to take this form, demanding the surrender of legal (or judicial) authority from one legal system or regime to another.5

2

Cases 172, 226/83, Hoogovens Groep v. Commission [1985] ECR 2831, at 2843, 2346; Cases 358/85, 51/86, France v. Parliament [1988] ECR 4821, 4846. 3 4

28 Mobil Oil v. New Zealand, Findings on Liability, Interpretation and Allied Issues, 4 May 1989, 4 ICSID Reports 140, 164. 5 A. Pillet, ‘Théorie Continentale des Conflits de Lois’, Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International Vol. 2 (1924) 451 at 472. See also PULKOWSKI, supra note 68 at 330–31.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 9

In the very first ICSID case, Holiday Inns v. Morocco,6 the tribunal held that because international proceedings in principle have primacy over purely internal proceedings, Moroccan courts should stay proceedings until the ICSID tribunal would reach a decision and should abide to any decision of the tribunal.7 Pursuant to article 54 of the Washington Convention,8 States parties to the Convention will be bound to recognize and enforce any award made by the ICSID tribunal, and therefore have their courts not interfering with such enforcement.9 Courts have the discretion to stay proceedings when a related action is pending before another court, and not only the same action. However, this discretion is deemed to follow from the text of the relevant provisions, which typically only provide that courts may decline jurisdiction when seized of a related action.10 This suggests that other factors may be relevant in order to determine whether the second proceedings are indeed undesirable and should not be entertained by the court before which it was brought. Indeed, this mechanism would not be enough for courts to find that a risk of conflicting decisions existed, and they would only actually decline jurisdiction if the other court not only had jurisdiction over both related actions, but also if it were overall a more appropriate forum to try the dispute.11 2. Forum non conveniens Forum non conveniens is actually a doctrine applied mostly in common law judicial systems. It allows courts that have jurisdiction over a case to remain or dismiss the case upon a determination that the case could also be heard more appropriately in another court. The court is 6 7

Award of May 12th, 1974 : see P. Lalive, The First World Bank Arbitration (Holiday Inns v. Morocco) Some Legal Problems, 51 BRIT. Y. INT. L. 123 (1980). 8 9

Paris court of appeal, 14 November 1991, REVUE DE LARBITRAGE 1994.545 obs. Fouchard. See the text of article 28 of the Brussels I Regulation, cit. above p. 32. 11 A. Briggs & P. Rees, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements, 2002, n2-213 ; A. Nuyts, Lexception de forum non conveniens, 2003, § 289 ; H. Gaudemet Tallon, Les rØgimes relatifs au refus dexercer la compØtence juridictionnelle en matiŁre civile et commerciale : Forum non conveniens, Lis Pendens, REV. INTL DR. COMP., 423 (1994). 10

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 10

given substantial discretion in determining whether a more appropriate forum exists and if so, whether to remain or dismiss in favor of that other court. The forum non conveniens doctrine differs in each State during which it's applied. In some, it's a basic element of jurisdictional analysis while in others, it's applied only after jurisdiction has been established. The doctrine of forum non conveniens is additionally important when an equivalent claim is brought between an equivalent party in multiple courts. In such instances of parallel litigation, forum non conveniens contrasts with the doctrine of lis alibi pendens, which is more commonly applied in civil law judicial systems. While lis alibi pendens encourages a race to the court house by creating a preference for the court first seised, forum non conveniens creates a stress on the primary to render judgment and is founded on the implicit assumption that the case shouldn't be heard within the court seised but rather within the court most appropriately situated in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. When successfully asserted, the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens leads to the court first seised declining jurisdiction in favor of another forum it finds more appropriate to make a decision the case. In civil law systems, jurisdiction is more commonly declined under the doctrine of lis alibi pendens, which involves a court second seised declining jurisdiction in favor of the court first seised. The rather strict preference in civil law systems that the court first seised exercises its jurisdiction to ascertain the case to judgment isn't according to the discretionary elements of the forum non conveniens doctrine. Nonetheless, cases in some civil law jurisdictions have adopted concepts almost like forum non conveniens. On March 5, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its opinion in Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, one among only a couple of Supreme Court decisions to deal squarely with the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Court held that administrative district courts needn't establish jurisdiction before dismissing transnational litigation on the idea of forum non conveniens. Although narrow in scope, the choice resolved a big circuit split over the right application of the forum non conveniens doctrine and has important implications for transnational litigation theory and practice.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 11

Background: As summarized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, the principle of forum non conveniens is just that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is permitted . The doctrine gives a U.S. administrative district court the discretion to dismiss transnational litigation - cases involving actors of quite one nationality or concerning activity or property with connections to quite one nation - in favor of a far off court if the foreign court is out there and adequate and therefore the balance of personal and public interest factors favors dismissal. choose whether to dismiss, more deference is given to a U.S. plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum than that of a non-U.S. plaintiff. As critics have noted, the forum non conveniens doctrine suffers from a spread of ambiguities. One such ambiguity involved whether a neighborhood court had to determine subject-matter and private jurisdiction before dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds. On the one hand, the Supreme Court's opinion in Gilbert states that “the doctrine of forum non conveniens can never apply if there's absence of jurisdiction”, suggesting an affirmative answer. On the opposite hand, it's not uncommon for a neighborhood court to dismiss transnational litigation on forum non conveniens grounds before resolving jurisdictional issues, supported the idea that albeit , hypothetically, the court had jurisdiction, it might dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds anyway. Moreover, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in American Dredging Company v. Miller, the forum non conveniens doctrine is “procedural instead of substantive,” implying that, even as a neighborhood court may dismiss for lack of private jurisdiction without first establishing subject-matter jurisdiction, it also may dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds without first establishing jurisdiction. The result was a circuit split, with the D.C. and Second Circuits allowing forum non conveniens dismissals without prior resolution of jurisdictional issues, but the Third, Fifth, Seventh and Ninth Circuits disallowing such dismissals Facts and Procedural Posture in Sinochem: The Supreme Court resolved this split in its Sinochem decision. The case arose from a dispute over a bill of lading. Petitioner Sinochem, a Chinese state-owned company, ordered steel coils from Triorient Trading, Inc., an American manufacturer, pursuant to a contract requiring shipment by April 30, 2003. Triorient had the coils shipped on a vessel sub chartered from USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 12

respondent Malaysia International. Upon arrival in China, Malaysia International's vessel was arrested by order of a Chinese admiralty court, supported a petition filed by Sinochem alleging that Malaysia International had falsely backdated the bill of lading to point an April 30 shipment, when actually the shipment wasn't loaded until May. Malaysia International then sued Sinochem within the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Sinochem made misrepresentations to the Chinese admiralty court, resulting in the vessel's arrest. Sinochem moved to dismiss the U.S. action. The district court determined that it had material jurisdiction, but that discovery would be needed before it could determine whether it had personal jurisdiction over Sinochem. However, the court dismissed the case without resolving the private jurisdiction question, reasoning that albeit , hypothetically, it did have personal jurisdiction, dismissal was appropriate under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Malaysia International appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, presenting the subsequent issue: Whether a neighborhood court must determine that its jurisdiction before dismissing a suit on forum non conveniens grounds. The circuit court held that forum non conveniens may be a non-merits ground for dismissal, but that the district court nevertheless should have concluded its jurisdictional inquiry before dismissing under the doctrine. It therefore reversed. The circuit court's reasoning was simple and somewhat formalistic. The essence of the forum non conveniens doctrine is that the discretion it gives a court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when there's a more appropriate foreign court. “As a court can only abstain from jurisdiction it already has, if it's no jurisdiction ipso facto it cannot abstain from the exercise of it.” Thus, “the very nature and definition of forum non conveniens presumes that the court deciding this issue has valid jurisdiction.” To support its holding, the circuit court pointed to the above-quoted language from the Supreme Court's Gilbert decision to the effect that the doctrine cannot apply within the absence of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The Court began by emphasizing that jurisdiction is important and a court decides on the merits of a case. It then characterized forum non conveniens dismissal as a determination denying the plaintiff a choice on the merits due to the fact that the merits should be decided elsewhere - a determination USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 13

that “does not entail any assumption by the court of a substantive law-declaring power.” Therefore, the Court concluded, forum non conveniens is actually a non-merits ground for dismissal and that jurisdiction needn't be established. This suggests that “a district court may eliminate an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subjectmatter and private jurisdiction.” The statement in Gilbert that the doctrine cannot apply without jurisdiction was "no hindrance to the Supreme Court's decision.” Whereas the difficulty in Sinochem was whether a court may dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds before choosing jurisdiction, the difficulty in Gilbert was whether a court may dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds albeit it has jurisdiction. Understood therein context, the Gilbert court's statement simply means that once a court determines that jurisdiction is lacking, it can proceed no

further

and

must

dismiss

the

case there,

on account.

The Court concluded its opinion by noting that “if a court can readily determine that it lacks jurisdiction

over

the

cause

or

the

defendant, the

right course

would

be

to

dismiss thereon ground" instead of on the base of forum non conveniens. In light of this caveat, it might be reasonable to interpret the court's holding as being limited to cases during which it’s less burdensome for the district court to resolve the forum non conveniens issue than the jurisdictional issues, albeit such a ‘relative burden’ test may prove difficult to use consistently in practice.

In 2011, a case was brought before a court , when a corporation based in Panama, Del Istmo Assurance Corp., hired contractors in the U.S. to put in kitchens, and do other construction work, in Trump Ocean Club International Hotel & Tower in Florida. The contractors were based in Florida

and

were

Florida

corporations.

According to the contract, the defendants were to be given with payments beforehand , which might ultimately be put in trust, in order that prepayment bonds might be issued because the project moved ahead. This fund was to be an assurance that the funds were available. At some point, however, the defendant began withdrawing money from the fund , using it to pay other bills. When the defendant did not repay the cash , Del Istmo filed a civil lawsuit for misappropriation

of

funds,

and

breach

of

contract.

The court checked out the jurisdiction to work out whether the Florida court was the right jurisdiction. albeit the Del Istmo came to Florida to file the lawsuit against the Florida USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 14

corporations, the court determined that, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the case should

be

heard

in

Panama.

The Plaintiff argued against the change, claiming that the remedies available to him under the laws

of

Panama weren't favorable,

but

the

court

rejected

the

argument.

The Plaintiff then presented an argument which supported a Panama statute that blocks cases that are heard

in the

other jurisdiction.

This

law

stated:

“For any proceeding under this Chapter judges aren't competent to listen to the case if the complaint or the action being commenced in Panama has been previously dismissed or denied by another judge under the appliance of forum non conveniens. In these cases, judges should dismiss or not recognize the complaint or demand on grounds of constitutional or preemptive jurisdiction.” The court then noted that a case previously filed in Florida, then dismissed the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and filed in Panama, was simply rejected by the Panamanian court. In this example of forum non conveniens dismissal, the action was refused and the Plaintiff during this matter was left hanging, with the courts of both countries refusing to listen to the case. 3. Inter vivos Inter vivos literally means between living people. Inter vivos is actually a legal term pertaining to a transfer or gift made during one's lifetime, as against a testamentary transfer under the topic of

trust.

The term is usually meant to describe a trust established during one's lifetime, i.e., an Inter vivos trust as against a trust which is established on one's death, usually as a part of a will. An Inter vivos trust is usually used synonymously with the more common term inter vivos trust , but an Inter

vivos

trust,

by

definition,

includes

both

revocable

and

irrevocable

trusts.

An inter vivos trust, or “living trust,” may be a trust that protects the trustor’s assets while he's still alive. This sort of trust may be a vehicle for managing assets while the trustor remains living, which also has instructions for handling those assets after the trustor’s death. The reason for its creation is to facilitate the to transfer assets to a trustor’s beneficiaries without having to bring the matter before a court . Not only does this eliminate the time-consuming and expensive process of probate, but it also protects the family’s assets from becoming general USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 15

knowledge. Ultimately, an inter vivos trust is made in order that assets are often transferred smoothly between the parties without any  kind of disruption or obstacle in their way. An example of an inter vivos trust are often found during a case concerning a developmentally disabled person and therefore the creditors who went after her trust. In 1983, the guardian for Barbara Hertzberg, a developmentally disabled woman, filed a complaint in Wayne Circuit Court in Michigan on Barbara’s behalf. within the complaint, it had been alleged that Edith Hertzberg, Barbara’s mother, had neglected Barbara by failing to use the Social Security benefits that she had

received

on

Barbara’s

behalf

to

properly lookout of

Barbara.

In January of 1986, a consent judgment was entered by the court, which ordered Edith to fund a trust – for Barbara’s benefit – within the amount of $150,000. The trust was established in the subsequent week, with Edith as its grantor. within the event of Barbara’s death, the trust was to then

be

distributed to

many of

Barbara’s

relatives.

Because Barbara was a recipient of psychological and social state services, she was also subject to the department’s financial evaluation. In May of 1994, the department determined that Barbara could access her trust to repay the state for nearly $91,000 in care provided to her by the department. Further, the department determined that a further $729 per month going forward would

be

necessary

to

continue

her

care.

A representative for Barbara appealed the department’s determination, however the appeal was adjourned by the parties after they agreed that the matter should really be decided by a court . The court, however, ultimately decided that Barbara was the actual settlor of the trust because she was technically the plaintiff within the original action. As such, because the court had determined Barbara to be both the settlor and therefore the beneficiary of the trust, then this was an example of an inter vivos trust, which may be accessed to satisfy creditors. A representative for Barbara appealed the probate court’s decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court , holding that the court had erred in determining that Barbara was the settlor. Edith was the one to make and fund the trust. Barbara had contributed nothing to the assets within the trust. The psychological and social state services department appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Michigan, however the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that Barbara wasn't the settlor of the trust, and ultimately affirmed the appeals court’s decision.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 16

________________________________________ After probate’s been opened with the court, establishing date of death values for all of the decedent's assets is that the next step. Any effects like jewelry, artwork, and collectibles must be appraised by a professional appraiser. A recent case questioned whether certain assets were even a part of the decedent’s estate. In Pennsylvania, the youngsters of a decedent appealed the choice of an attempt court that found a number of their father’s assets were inter vivos gifts and not a part of his estate. Along with his two antique cars, they contested their father’s collection of coins. The daughter challenged the trial court’s finding that the collection of coins didn’t constitute an inter vivos gift. The father executed a will providing that if his wife predeceased him, the estate was to be divided into two equal shares for his two children. The father's wife passed in 2008. He died testate on in 2013, and his will was admitted to probate. The father's estate filed a primary and final account and issued a schedule of distribution. Both parties filed objections, disputing the ownership

of

the

antique

cars and

therefore

the coin

collection.

In 2011, the parent(in this case the father) established a savings account trust , a inter vivos trust agreement, and signed a letter stating he was giving the daughter his coin collection because he did not wished to take care of them in his home. In 2012, the daughter and her husband visited the father's home to get rid of the coin collection. The dad was visibly upset and when the father's caretaker arrived later that day, he was still upset, saying, “They're gone.” The court ordered

that

the

coin

collection

was

the

property

of

the

estate.

On appeal, Judge Lillian Harris Ransom wrote in her court opinion that a legitimate inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance. There must be evidence of an intention to give a present amid delivery—either actual or constructive—of a nature sufficient not only to divest the donor of all dominion over the property, the judge explained, but to take the position of the donee with complete control. She went on to mention that each one of the circumstances must be considered in determining whether a present was made, which donative intent are

often inferred

from the

connection between

the

donor

and

donee.

Judge Ransom went on to state that the burden of proving an inter vivos gift is placed initially on the putative donee, who must first show a clear case through clear, direct, and convincing USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 17

evidence. Once a clear case is established, a presumption of the validity of the gift arises, and therefore the burden shifts to the contestant to point out that by clear and convincing evidence that

the

property wasn't given

as

an

inter

vivos

gift.

The son argued that the daughter did not show that the dad possessed the donative intent to form the gift. The daughter claimed that the court erred in finding that she’d did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the dad made an inter vivos gift of the coin collection to her. Consistent with the daughter, the letter signed by the dad was a transparent and convincing expression of donative intent, and, although delivery of the coins didn’t happen for a couple of months after this, there was no evidence within the record suggesting that the dad had revoked his intent before delivery.

However,

the court concluded

that:

1. Evidence from multiple witnesses showed that the dad was primarily concerned about the security of

the

coins;

2. The letter relied upon by the daughter to determine donative intent was ambiguous; and 3. The father's behavior at delivery was evidence of revocation: he was upset on the day of delivery, also as his statement to his caretaker that the coins were gone.

Again, the court found the language of the letter ambiguous. That judge relied upon precedent that held that a decedent's statement that she was giving rings to her sister to stay was ambiguous and equivocal - the word give was as according to a bailment because it was with a present. Supported this reasoning, the court during this case held that the word ‘give’ was indeed ambiguous and without more, the daughter couldn’t meet her burden of clear and convincing evidence. The daughter argued that the testimony of the trust officer who drafted the letter established the father's intent. However, the trust officer also acknowledged that the dad didn’t used the word ‘gift’ in their conversation which he was concerned with the safety of the coins due to the number of caretakers coming in and out of his home. That concern, Judge Ranson opined, was according to a bailment instead of a present . The daughter did not show donative intent before delivery. USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 18

The daughter did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the coins constituted an inter vivos gift.

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/historicalcases/legal_maxims.htm



https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/inter-vivos/



https://www.freemansauction.com/news/case-study-inter-vivos-gifts



https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1274011.html



https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/forum-non-conveniens-scope-andapplication



http://www.paclii.org/libraries/maritime_law/case-summaries-forum-non-conveniensforum-conviens/index.html

USAGE OF LATIN MAXIMS IN CASE LAWS Page 20