Tracy P. Streber, F.K.A. Tracy C. Parker, et al. - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
          to the daughters.  Because Nathan was working at Parker's                   
          direction, and only Nathan's name appears as purchaser on the               
          earnest money contracts, it is unclear just how much of an                  
          interest in the contracts the daughters had received as a result            
          of Parker's gift.  The joint venture agreement, when read                   
          together with the January 8 writing, however, makes it clear just           
          how much of a gift Parker had made to the daughters.  Clearly, as           
          stated in the January 8 writing, Parker had retained the right to           
          a substantial cash payment (fee).  In Cox v. Windham, 10 S.W.2d             
          136, 139 (Tex. Civ. App. 1928) the court stated:  "It is settled            
          law that where property is delivered to a third person under                
          conditions indicating the donor intended to make an effective               
          gift, it will be so treated".  The court also stated a further              
          rule: "that delivery of personal property is not so strictly                
          applied to transactions between members of a family residing in             
          the same house, as is applied to transactions between strangers."           
           Id.; see also Bishop v. Bishop, 359 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. 1962)            
          (citing with approval Cox v. Windham, supra).  In the Bishop                
          case, in the context of a divorce action, the Texas Supreme Court           
          dealt with the ex-wife's claim that, while she was married to her           
          ex-husband, he had told her that certain household furniture was            
          hers, even though it remained in the house occupied by both of              
          them.  The court stated:  "Texas is one of the jurisdictions                
          holding that statements by the donor indicating that he had given           
          the chattel to the donee are sufficient to raise an issue of fact           

Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011