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 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quinn v. Quinngreen2 sentences2018Along those lines, we discussed the doctrine of transmutation, whereby "property can be converted from nonmarital property into marital property if changed in form and put into joint names." Id. (quoting Cloutier v. Cloutier , 567 A.2d 1131 , 1132 (R.I. 1989) ); see also Quinn , 512 A.2d at 852 . 2006In Quinn v. Quinn, 512 A.2d 848, 852 (R.I.1986), this Court held that: “When, during the course of a marriage, title to property for which one spouse has paid the purchase price is acquired in the names of both spouses, the transaction is presumed to be a gift or advancement for the benefit of the other spouse.” This “doctrine of transmutation” coincides with the recognition of marriage as a partnership by permitting a change in the character of property from separate to marital when an actual intention to do so is objectively manifested. | 4 | 5 |
Ruffel v. Ruffelgreen1 sentence2007We have held that the “elements of a valid gift are a ‘present true donative intent on the part of the donor’ and ‘some manifestation such as an actual or symbolic delivery of the subject of the gift * * *.’ ” Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178, 1189 (R.I.2006) (quoting Black v. Wiesner, 112 R.I. 261, 267 , 308 A.2d 511, 515 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Black v. Wiesnergreen2 sentences2007We have held that the “elements of a valid gift are a ‘present true donative intent on the part of the donor’ and ‘some manifestation such as an actual or symbolic delivery of the subject of the gift * * *.’ ” Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178, 1189 (R.I.2006) (quoting Black v. Wiesner, 112 R.I. 261, 267 , 308 A.2d 511, 515 (1973)). 2007We have held that the “elements of a valid gift are a ‘present true donative intent on the part of the donor’ and ‘some manifestation such as an actual or symbolic delivery of the subject of the gift * * *.’ ” Ruffel v. Ruffel, 900 A.2d 1178, 1189 (R.I.2006) (quoting Black v. Wiesner, 112 R.I. 261, 267 , 308 A.2d 511, 515 (1973)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stephenson v. Stephenson
green
2 sentences2018Along those lines, we discussed the doctrine of transmutation, whereby "property can be converted from nonmarital property into marital property if changed in form and put into joint names." Id. (quoting Cloutier v. Cloutier , 567 A.2d 1131 , 1132 (R.I. 1989) ); see also Quinn , 512 A.2d at 852 . 2018Nevertheless, we cited Mitchell v. Mitchell , 756 A.2d 179 (R.I. 2000), for the proposition that "[w]hile both parties are still alive, * * * the existence of a joint bank account only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of an intent to make a gift of a joint interest therein * * *." Stephenson , 811 A.2d at 1143 (quoting Mitchell , 756 A.2d at 182 ). | 2 | 2006–2018 |
Cloutier v. Cloutier
green
1 sentence2018Along those lines, we discussed the doctrine of transmutation, whereby "property can be converted from nonmarital property into marital property if changed in form and put into joint names." Id. (quoting Cloutier v. Cloutier , 567 A.2d 1131 , 1132 (R.I. 1989) ); see also Quinn , 512 A.2d at 852 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Mitchell v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2018Nevertheless, we cited Mitchell v. Mitchell , 756 A.2d 179 (R.I. 2000), for the proposition that "[w]hile both parties are still alive, * * * the existence of a joint bank account only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of an intent to make a gift of a joint interest therein * * *." Stephenson , 811 A.2d at 1143 (quoting Mitchell , 756 A.2d at 182 ). 2018Nevertheless, we cited Mitchell v. Mitchell , 756 A.2d 179 (R.I. 2000), for the proposition that "[w]hile both parties are still alive, * * * the existence of a joint bank account only gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of an intent to make a gift of a joint interest therein * * *." Stephenson , 811 A.2d at 1143 (quoting Mitchell , 756 A.2d at 182 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.
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.