gift presumption in Illinois

14 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
In Re Marriage of Hagshenasgreen illappct · 1992 · cited in 5 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2020 2 sentences 2020In re Marriage of Hagshenas, 234 Ill. 2014See In re Marriage of Hagshenas, 234 Ill.	3	5
In Re Marriage of Awangreen illappct · 2009 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012Awan, 388 Ill.App.3d at 213 , 327 Ill.Dec. 656 , 902 N.E.2d 777 . 2012Awan, 388 Ill.App.3d at 213 , 327 Ill.Dec. 656 , 902 N.E.2d 777 .	2	2
In Re Estate of McCormickgreen illappct · 1994 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., McCormick, 262 Ill.App.3d at 170 , 199 Ill.Dec. 502 , 634 N.E.2d at 346 (refusing to find a resulting trust was created since a gift reasonably could be inferred at least with respect to the son, and further noting that there was no evidence tending to negate a gift to son's wife where the conveyance was in joint tenancy); but cf. Varap v. Varap, 76 Ill.App.2d 402, 413 , 222 N.E.2d 77 (1966) (no presumption of gift to daughter-in-law and evidence of gift was insufficient). 2001See, e.g., McCormick, 262 Ill.	2	2
In Re Marriage of Marcellogreen illappct · 1993 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 1 sentence 2013“In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift [citation], and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. [Citations.]” In re Marriage of Marcello, 247 Ill.	1	1
O'Donnell v. O'Donnellgreen ill · 1922 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984(Hofmann v. Hofmann (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 205, 216 , 446 N.E.2d 499 ; see also In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529-30 , 427 N.E.2d 1239 .) In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift (see O’Donnell v. O’Donnell (1922), 303 Ill. 31, 37 , 135 N.E.28) and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.	1	1
In re Marriage of Smithgreen ill · 1981 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984(Hofmann v. Hofmann (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 205, 216 , 446 N.E.2d 499 ; see also In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529-30 , 427 N.E.2d 1239 .) In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift (see O’Donnell v. O’Donnell (1922), 303 Ill. 31, 37 , 135 N.E.28) and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 1984(Hofmann v. Hofmann (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 205, 216 , 446 N.E.2d 499 ; see also In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529-30 , 427 N.E.2d 1239 .) In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift (see O’Donnell v. O’Donnell (1922), 303 Ill. 31, 37 , 135 N.E.28) and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
Varap v. Varapgreen illappct · 1966 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1984–2001 2 sentences 2001See, e.g., McCormick, 262 Ill.App.3d at 170 , 199 Ill.Dec. 502 , 634 N.E.2d at 346 (refusing to find a resulting trust was created since a gift reasonably could be inferred at least with respect to the son, and further noting that there was no evidence tending to negate a gift to son's wife where the conveyance was in joint tenancy); but cf. Varap v. Varap, 76 Ill.App.2d 402, 413 , 222 N.E.2d 77 (1966) (no presumption of gift to daughter-in-law and evidence of gift was insufficient). 2001See, e.g., McCormick, 262 Ill.App.3d at 170 , 199 Ill.Dec. 502 , 634 N.E.2d at 346 (refusing to find a resulting trust was created since a gift reasonably could be inferred at least with respect to the son, and further noting that there was no evidence tending to negate a gift to son's wife where the conveyance was in joint tenancy); but cf. Varap v. Varap, 76 Ill.App.2d 402, 413 , 222 N.E.2d 77 (1966) (no presumption of gift to daughter-in-law and evidence of gift was insufficient).	1	2

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
In Re Marriage of Didier green illappct · 2000 2 sentences 2012Didier, 318 Ill.App.3d at 258 , 252 Ill.Dec. 270 , 742 N.E.2d 808 . 2012Didier, 318 Ill.App.3d at 258 , 252 Ill.Dec. 270 , 742 N.E.2d 808 .	2	2012–2012
Somer v. Bogart green texapp · 1988 2 sentences 2001Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d at 204 . 2001Somer v. Bogart, 749 S.W.2d at 204 .	2	2001–2001
Baker v. Baker green ill · 1952 2 sentences 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107	2	1981–1990
In Re Marriage of Lindman green illappct · 2005 1 sentence 2020Thus, we assume for purposes of our review that a gift presumption arose upon the transfer of the funds to Zachary and that the onus was on him to rebut the presumption at hearing by clear and convincing evidence. - 12 - 2020 IL App (2d) 180851-U Lindman, 356 Ill.	1	2020–2020
In re Marriage of Rosen green illappct · 1984 2 sentences 1993App. 3d 766 , 467 N.E.2d 962 ), and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 1993(In re Marriage of Rosen, 126 Ill.	1	1993–1993
In Re Marriage of Rogers green ill · 1981 2 sentences 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107	1	1990–1990
In Re Marriage of Olson green ill · 1983 2 sentences 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107	1	1990–1990
In re Marriage of Benz green illappct · 1988 1 sentence 1990App. 3d at 281 , 518 N.E.2d at 1320 .) More particularly to the question at hand, the supreme court has explained that the “principle of transmutation is based on the presumption that the owner of the nonmarital property intended to make a gift of the property to the marital estate” (emphasis added) (Olson, 96 Ill. 2d at 439 , 451 N.E.2d at 828 ), and that this gift presumption could be rebutted “ ‘by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended’ ” (emphasis added) (Rogers, 85 Ill. 2d at 221 , 422 N.E.2d at 638 , quoting Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 , 107	1	1990–1990
Hofmann v. Hofmann green ill · 1983 2 sentences 1984(Hofmann v. Hofmann (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 205, 216 , 446 N.E.2d 499 ; see also In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529-30 , 427 N.E.2d 1239 .) In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift (see O’Donnell v. O’Donnell (1922), 303 Ill. 31, 37 , 135 N.E.28) and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 1984(Hofmann v. Hofmann (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 205, 216 , 446 N.E.2d 499 ; see also In re Marriage of Smith (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 518, 529-30 , 427 N.E.2d 1239 .) In Illinois, a transfer from parent to child is presumed to be a gift (see O’Donnell v. O’Donnell (1922), 303 Ill. 31, 37 , 135 N.E.28) and the gift presumption may be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.	1	1984–1984
Kratzer v. Kratzer green illappct · 1971 1 sentence 1982(See, i.e., In re Marriage of Spina (1939), 372 Ill. 50 , 22 N.E.2d 687 ; In re Marriage of Kratzer (1971), 130 Ill.	1	1982–1982
Spina v. Spina green ill · 1939 2 sentences 1982(See, i.e., In re Marriage of Spina (1939), 372 Ill. 50 , 22 N.E.2d 687 ; In re Marriage of Kratzer (1971), 130 Ill. 1982(See, i.e., In re Marriage of Spina (1939), 372 Ill. 50 , 22 N.E.2d 687 ; In re Marriage of Kratzer (1971), 130 Ill.	1	1982–1982
Lutticice v. Lutticke neutral ill · 1950 1 sentence 1981(Doody v. Doody (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 191, 194 ; Peck v. Peck (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 268, 283 ; Savich v. Savich (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 454, 460 ; Lutticke v. Lutticke (1950), 406 Ill. 181, 187-88 .) It was said that the gift presumption was one “of fact” which could be rebutted “by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended. [Citations.]” Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 .	1	1981–1981
Peck v. Peck green ill · 1959 1 sentence 1981(Doody v. Doody (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 191, 194 ; Peck v. Peck (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 268, 283 ; Savich v. Savich (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 454, 460 ; Lutticke v. Lutticke (1950), 406 Ill. 181, 187-88 .) It was said that the gift presumption was one “of fact” which could be rebutted “by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended. [Citations.]” Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 .	1	1981–1981
Savich v. Savich green ill · 1957 1 sentence 1981(Doody v. Doody (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 191, 194 ; Peck v. Peck (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 268, 283 ; Savich v. Savich (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 454, 460 ; Lutticke v. Lutticke (1950), 406 Ill. 181, 187-88 .) It was said that the gift presumption was one “of fact” which could be rebutted “by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended. [Citations.]” Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 .	1	1981–1981
Doody v. Doody green ill · 1963 1 sentence 1981(Doody v. Doody (1963), 28 Ill. 2d 191, 194 ; Peck v. Peck (1959), 16 Ill. 2d 268, 283 ; Savich v. Savich (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 454, 460 ; Lutticke v. Lutticke (1950), 406 Ill. 181, 187-88 .) It was said that the gift presumption was one “of fact” which could be rebutted “by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended. [Citations.]” Baker v. Baker (1952), 412 Ill. 511, 515 .	1	1981–1981
Henry v. Henry green ill · 1941 1 sentence 1968The definition of class gifts and pertinent rules of construction as followed by Illinois courts are set forth in the case of Strohm v. McMullen, 404 Ill 453, 89 NE2d 383 : “The definition of a class gift adopted by this court, as laid down by Mr. Jarman in his work on Wills, Vol 1, P 534, 5th Am Ed, is: ‘A gift to a class is defined ... as a gift of an aggregate sum to a body of persons uncertain in number at the time of the gift, to be ascertained at a future time, and who are all to take in equal or in some other definite proportions, the share of each being dependent for its amount upon th	1	1968–1968
Strohm v. McMullen neutral ill · 1949 1 sentence 1968The definition of class gifts and pertinent rules of construction as followed by Illinois courts are set forth in the case of Strohm v. McMullen, 404 Ill 453, 89 NE2d 383 : “The definition of a class gift adopted by this court, as laid down by Mr. Jarman in his work on Wills, Vol 1, P 534, 5th Am Ed, is: ‘A gift to a class is defined ... as a gift of an aggregate sum to a body of persons uncertain in number at the time of the gift, to be ascertained at a future time, and who are all to take in equal or in some other definite proportions, the share of each being dependent for its amount upon th	1	1968–1968

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 750 ILCS 5/503 (5) IL § 750 ILCS 5/505 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

CA 27 (1922–2026) AZ 23 (1976–2024) IL 14 (1968–2020) TX 12 (1991–2026) NC 9 (1985–2021) NY 8 (1894–2006) OH 8 (1963–2018) ND 8 (2008–2024) FL 7 (1967–2019) MS 7 (1994–2010) WA 5 (2009–2015) KY 4 (2003–2025) MT 4 (1932–2024) PA 4 (1938–2015) MA 4 (1931–2003) UT 3 (1983–2011) NJ 3 (1949–2021) VT 3 (1907–2007) MD 3 (1975–1989) AK 2 (2023–2025) NV 2 (2011–2020) MO 2 (1977–2011) OK 2 (2006–2015) IA 2 (1968–2019) WV 2 (1995–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check