In May I told you about the Minnesota man
who gave his church $126,000, then asked for
the money back, saying that he lacked the
legal ability (the legal term is “capacity”)
to make the gift. Since this is the gift-giving
season, I thought it might be a good time
to revisit the legal concept of gift-giving.
When is a gift unenforceable, or in other
words, under what circumstances can I take
it back? In the case of the Minnesota man,
he claimed that he was under such stress,
and the gift was so out of character for him,
that he lacked capacity to make the gift,
and therefore should be allowed to take it
back. I pointed out that although you might
have sympathy for his plight (or not), if
the threshold for a person to claim that he
or she is not legally responsible for a transaction
is too low, pretty soon there will be a lot
of disputes about whether transactions are
legally final and enforceable.
Now there’s a story out of New York
that illustrates the same point, but in a
different context. This time the person claiming
that she lacked capacity is trying to undo
a contract rather than a gift. The legal analysis,
however, is essentially the same. Did the
person have legal qualification, competency,
power or fitness to enter into the contract?
I’ll give you the scenario and let you
analyze it for yourselves. My information
comes from Newsday.com.
Antoinette Millard, aka “Princess Antoinette,”
aka Lisa Walker, charged to her American Express
“Centurion” account some $950,000
in jewelry from high-end New York purveyors.
When she was unable to pay the bills, she
blamed American Express for not realizing
that she lacked capacity. When American Express
sued Millard for the debt, she filed her own
lawsuit against American Express (!) in which
she alleges that she was “suffering from
anorexia, depression, panic attacks, head
tumors and by reason of such illnesses was
mentally incompetent and unable of executing
or making any agreement as alleged” in
American Express’ complaint. American
Express “knew or should have known that
(Millard) was acting impulsively and irrationally
at the time she entered into contract,”
Millard’s court papers say.
Now, you tell me: do you think Millard could
have been so incapable of understanding the
consequences of her actions that she lacked
capacity? Does it help or hurt her case if
I tell you that she was just masquerading
as a princess, and was really just a woman
from Buffalo employed by a Wall Street financial
firm?
FOLLOW UP
TO LAST MONTH'S REAL ESTATE LAW UPDATE: THE
VOTERS HAVE SPOKEN (?)
Thanks to alert reader (and keen observer
of the legal scene) Paul Relich, who pointed
out, in response to my short subject last
month, that just because voters have approved
a ballot measure doesn't mean that they have
“effectively decided” the issue.
I said that the voters of Oregon have effectively
decided that enforcement of any regulation
adopted after a land owner acquired his property
is a taking for which the government must
pay compensation, to which Paul replied: "As
we know all too well in Arizona, the voters
rarely effectively decide anything. See Proposition
200."
THANK YOU
Thanks to the many of you, my faithful readers,
who have offered kind words of praise and
encouragement for my efforts in writing this
missive each month. It really helps me to
know that it is actually being read and that
at least some of you find it informative and/or
enjoyable. Thanks also to our fine staff here
at DeConcini McDonald, who do the heavy lifting
in producing and mailing the Update/Special
Report, as well as posting it at www.deconcinimcdonald.com.
