- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011