-37-
without valid delivery, the intent of the donor may be in
question.
In any event, a delivery to be sufficient to support a gift
must be absolute and unqualified; it must vest the donee with,
and divest the donor of, control and dominion over the property.
Ansley v. Sunbelt Invs. Realty , Inc., 337 S.E.2d 448, 450 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1985). It is well settled that if a donor retains a
power of revocation, a valid inter vivos gift cannot be
completed. Stewart v. Stewart, 186 S.E.2d 746, 747 (Ga. 1972);
Guest v. Stone, 56 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. 1949); see also Drake v.
Wayne, 184 S.E. 339, 342 (Ga. Ct. App. 1936) ("A delivery of
property subject to be reclaimed by the donor at any time prior
to his death, * * *, does not constitute a valid gift inter
vivos.").
Under the facts of this case, the checks are not valid inter
vivos gifts due to the failure of delivery. Georgia law provides
that a customer may stop payment of a check drawn on the
customer's account prior to action by the drawee. Ga. Code Ann.
sec. 11-4-403 (1991); Hardeman v. State, 268 S.E.2d 415, 417 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1980); Fulton Natl. Bank v. Delco Corp., 195 S.E.2d 455
(Ga. Ct. App. 1973); Mason v. Blayton, 166 S.E.2d 601, 603 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1969); Stewart v. Western Union Tel. Co., 64 S.E.2d 327,
329 (Ga. Ct. App. 1951). Due to her power to stop payment of the
checks before the bank paid them, decedent retained the power to
revoke the gifts; thus, the funds still belonged to her. Because
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011