Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Daddario v. Rosegreen2 sentences2024Because appellant and her mother shared a fiduciary relationship, a presumption of undue influence arose as to all of the assets appellant alleges were conveyed as gifts, and appellant was required to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. {¶37} Id. at ¶ 30 . . . [T]he matter is remanded for a determination of whether appellant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so determined, whether appellees presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the family gift presumption. {¶38} Id. at ¶ 36. 2024Because appellant and her mother shared a fiduciary relationship, a presumption of undue influence arose as to all of the assets appellant alleges were conveyed as gifts, and appellant was required to rebut this presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. {¶40} Id. at ¶ 30 . . . [T]he matter is remanded for a determination of whether appellant presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so determined, whether appellees presented clear and convincing evidence to rebut the family gift presumption. {¶41} Id. at ¶ 36. | 1 | 2 |
Miller v. Millergreen1 sentence2022That is, Patrick faults the trial court for failing to properly apply the so-called “family-gift presumption,” and he asks that we do so. “[U]nder the family gift presumption, if a transaction benefits a family member, the transaction is presumed to be a gift.” -11- Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-18-19, 2018-Ohio-5285, ¶ 5 (“Miller II”), citing Kovacs v. Kovacs, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-09-039, 2011-Ohio-154 , ¶ 12. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Miller
green
2 sentences2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . 2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Osborn v. Osborn, Unpublished Decision (12-3-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . 2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . | 2 | 2018–2022 |
Davis v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (2-23-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2019“Donative intent is established if a transferor intends to transfer a present possessory interest in an asset.” Brate v. Hurt, 174 Ohio App.3d 101 , 2007-Ohio-6571 , 880 N.E.2d 980 (12th Dist. Warren). {¶45} Husband first contends the trial court did not properly apply the “family gift presumption.” In Davis v. Davis, a civil action, this Court held that “when a transaction is made that benefits a family member, there is a presumption that the transaction was intended as a gift.” 5th Dist. Stark No. 2003CA00243, 2004-Ohio-820 . {¶46} However, this Court has not applied the family gift presumpt 2018Stark No. 2003CA00243, 2004-Ohio-820, ¶ 8 . | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Brandon v. Brandon
green
2 sentences2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . 2022Id.; Miller v. Miller, 6th Dist. Sandusky No. S-16-27, 2017-Ohio-7646 ; Osborn v. Osborn, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2003-T-0111, 2004-Ohio-6476 .1 {¶18} Contrasting with the family-gift presumption applied in these cases from the Sixth and Eleventh Districts is the longstanding rule of this court—that the spouse “claiming an inter vivos gift [from the alleged donor spouse] bears the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that such a gift was made.” Brandon v. Brandon, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-08-13, 2009-Ohio-3818, ¶ 26 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Herman v. Herman
green
1 sentence2022Herman I, 2021-Ohio-3876, at ¶ 9 ; see, e.g., Eggeman 1 As this court noted while sitting by assignment in the Sixth District, where we followed the Sixth District’s family-gift presumption jurisprudence, the Eleventh District has not been consistent in applying the family-gift presumption in divorce cases. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Casper v. Casper
green
1 sentence2022CA2012-12-128 and CA2012-12-129, 2013-Ohio-4329, ¶ 12 . {¶19} In arguing for application of the family-gift presumption, Patrick provides us with no compelling reason to depart from our long-established precedent placing the burden on the donee spouse to prove the existence of an inter vivos gift from the donor spouse. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Eggeman v. Eggeman, Unpublished Decision (11-15-2004)
green
2 sentences2022Miller II at ¶ 6, fn. 2 (observing that, after Osborn, the Eleventh District did not apply the family-gift presumption in two factually similar cases). -12- v. Eggeman, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-04-06, 2004-Ohio-6050, ¶ 30 ; Guffey v. Guffey, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-99-03, 1999 WL 378358 , *2 (June 3, 1999). 2022Miller II at ¶ 6, fn. 2 (observing that, after Osborn, the Eleventh District did not apply the family-gift presumption in two factually similar cases). -12- v. Eggeman, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-04-06, 2004-Ohio-6050, ¶ 30 ; Guffey v. Guffey, 3d Dist. Allen No. 1-99-03, 1999 WL 378358 , *2 (June 3, 1999). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Brate v. Hurt
green
2 sentences2019“Donative intent is established if a transferor intends to transfer a present possessory interest in an asset.” Brate v. Hurt, 174 Ohio App.3d 101 , 2007-Ohio-6571 , 880 N.E.2d 980 (12th Dist. Warren). {¶45} Husband first contends the trial court did not properly apply the “family gift presumption.” In Davis v. Davis, a civil action, this Court held that “when a transaction is made that benefits a family member, there is a presumption that the transaction was intended as a gift.” 5th Dist. Stark No. 2003CA00243, 2004-Ohio-820 . {¶46} However, this Court has not applied the family gift presumpt 2019“Donative intent is established if a transferor intends to transfer a present possessory interest in an asset.” Brate v. Hurt, 174 Ohio App.3d 101 , 2007-Ohio-6571 , 880 N.E.2d 980 (12th Dist. Warren). {¶45} Husband first contends the trial court did not properly apply the “family gift presumption.” In Davis v. Davis, a civil action, this Court held that “when a transaction is made that benefits a family member, there is a presumption that the transaction was intended as a gift.” 5th Dist. Stark No. 2003CA00243, 2004-Ohio-820 . {¶46} However, this Court has not applied the family gift presumpt | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Neville v. Neville
green
1 sentence2018Marion No. 9-08-37, 2009-Ohio-3817, ¶ 17 ; Stotts v. Stotts, 4th Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Helton v. Helton
green
2 sentences2018The Osborn decision was somewhat novel in applying the family gift presumption to transactions between spouses that are alleged to be gifts in a divorce proceeding.2 Compare Helton v. Helton, 114 Ohio App.3d 683 , 683 N.E.2d 1157 (2d Dist.); Neville v. Neville, 3d Dist. 2018The Osborn decision was somewhat novel in applying the family gift presumption to transactions between spouses that are alleged to be gifts in a divorce proceeding.2 Compare Helton v. Helton, 114 Ohio App.3d 683 , 683 N.E.2d 1157 (2d Dist.); Neville v. Neville, 3d Dist. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Studniewski v. Krzyzanowski
green
1 sentence1998Furthermore, "where a confidential relationship exists between a donor and a donee, the transfer is looked upon with some suspicion that undue influence may have been brought to bear on the donor by the donee." Studniewski v. Krzyanowski (1989), 65 Ohio App.3d 628 , 632 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.