New Jersey Appellate Court Allows Woman To Keep Apartment Building Given To Her By Boyfriend, Even Though She Did Not Learn Of The Gift Until After He Had Died
June 27, 2023
By: Carl L. Engel
On June 20, 2023, the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, in the case Branco v. Rodrigues, for the first time was asked to consider the validity of a gift where the recipient did not know of its existence until after the giver had died. Specifically, a building owner had transferred an apartment building from himself to himself and his girlfriend jointly, and had recorded the deed. However, he never explicitly told his girlfriend about the transfer, and she only learned of it after his death. His children from an earlier relationship challenged the gift, arguing that he could not have intended to give the property to his girlfriend if he had not even told her about it while he was alive. The court disagreed, however, finding that the owner had evidenced his intent to give her the property when he recorded the deed that effectuated the conveyance.
Lidia Branco and Jose Rodrigues lived together in a long-term relationship for approximately twenty-five years, until he died in a car accident in June 2020. The two never married, and Jose never prepared a will. He was an entrepreneur who, at the time of his death, owned several entities and properties, including a sixteen-unit apartment building in Newark, New Jersey. Jose’s son, Francisco Rodrigues, was the administrator of his estate.
In March 2007, after Ms. Branco and Jose had been together for twelve years, and without her knowledge, Jose conveyed title in the apartment building from himself in fee simple to Ms. Branco and himself as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Jose was the only signatory on the deed transferring title to him and Ms. Branco jointly. He recorded the deed in April 2007, but never told her. She only found out about the transfer after he died.
Specifically, in July 2020, Francisco began forwarding monthly rental checks from the property to Ms. Branco, which inspired her to order a title search on the property. Upon discovering her interest therein, she formed a real-estate holding company and transferred title of the property to it. In December 2020, Ms. Branco filed a complaint against Francisco seeking to “quiet title” to the property by having the court enter an order as to its ownership, thereby resolving any dispute regarding who owns the property. In January 2022, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The trial court found that the property belonged to Ms. Branco, because the transfer was an effective inter vivos gift. The court reasoned that Jose’s continuous financial support of Ms. Branco with money from the property during their lifetime demonstrated his intent to give it to her, and that he had given notice to all interested parties when he recorded the deed. Francisco appealed, arguing that Ms. Branco had not produced evidence of Jose’s intent sufficient for the court to enter judgment in her favor without a trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision that the transfer of the property to Ms. Branco was a valid inter vivos gift. The Appellate Division observed, as a threshold matter, that New Jersey has a statute that authorizes a property owner to transfer property to himself and another, avoiding the need for a “straw man” to complete the transaction, as was required under the common law.
The Appellate Division then found that Ms. Branco had established the four elements necessary to demonstrate a valid and irrevocable gift: (i) an act constituting the actual or symbolic delivery by the donor of the gift; (ii) the donor’s intent to give; (iii) acceptance of the gift by the donee, and (iv) relinquishment by the donor “of ownership and dominion over the subject matter of the gift.” The Appellate Division rejected Francisco’s argument that there was no donative intent because, even though Jose had never told Ms. Branco about the gift, he had recorded the deed conveying title. By following the legal steps to finalize the transfer of the property to himself and Ms. Branco, he had evidenced his intent to do so. Further, the recording of the deed was a delivery and acceptance of the gift, because it operated to transfer the property. Finally, because Jose would have needed Ms. Branco’s permission to transfer the property back to himself, he had relinquished dominion over it. The transfer of the apartment building to Ms. Branco, therefore, was a valid inter vivos gift.
While it appears that the Appellate Division was able to discern Jose’s intent, and entered an order consistent therewith, the case still illustrates the importance of preparing a will, especially when unmarried. Had Jose died with a will, the family members could have ascertained his intentions for the distribution of his property without having to resort to litigation and discovery. And even without a will, matters would have been simplified somewhat if Jose and Ms. Branco had been married, because she would have inherited all of his property. However, without the security of a will or marriage, Ms. Branco’s inheritance was clouded by an ambiguity that had to be resolved by the courts and which could have been avoided entirely.