Jackson v. DBR Jackson Partnership
70 N.E.3d 641
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Dean Jackson (father) negotiated a 1977 purchase agreement for 320 acres (the "Dixon 320") listing himself and his four adult children as purchasers; the agreement required payments and later conveyance by deed.
- Dean, Barry, and Russell farmed the land and made payments; Cheryl and Janet did not contribute to payments or farming and received no proceeds.
- A 1992 addendum (signed by the same parties) modified payments and extended the closing date; family testimony suggested Dean intended to exclude Cheryl and Janet from a final interest.
- In 2009 Margaret Dixon executed and Russell recorded a warranty deed conveying the Dixon 320 to Russell alone; Cheryl was not informed and received no deed or payments.
- Cheryl intervened in litigation and claimed an equitable one-fifth interest in the land as a donee under the 1977 purchase agreement; the trial court granted Cheryl summary judgment, finding a completed gift, and Russell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cheryl) | Defendant's Argument (Russell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether listing Cheryl on the 1977 purchase agreement completed a gift of a 1/5 interest in the Dixon 320 | Dean manifested donative intent by naming Cheryl as a purchaser; presumption of parental gift | Gift of real property was incomplete until deed delivery; Dean retained control and could revoke | Reversed: gift was incomplete as a matter of law because delivery of deed was required to vest title |
| Whether Cheryl acquired an equitable/contract purchaser interest from the purchase agreement | The contract and inclusion on paperwork created an equitable interest enforceable against Russell | A contract to sell land is executory; Cheryl made no payments and thus had no legal or equitable property interest | Held for Russell: no equitable or legal interest from the executory purchase agreement |
| Whether Russell’s later acts (signing addendum, recording deed) ratified or estopped revocation of the alleged gift | Cheryl argued Russell’s conduct acquiesced to her ownership | Russell argued subsequent acts were irrelevant because no completed gift or vested interest existed to ratify | Court held subsequent acts irrelevant because no vested interest existed |
| Whether laches or other defenses barred Cheryl’s claim | Cheryl did not assert laches; trial court found laches inapplicable | Russell argued equitable defenses and that evidence showed revocable intent | Appellate court did not rest decision on laches; decision based on incompleteness of gift |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Moore, 9 Ill. 2d 556 (Ill. 1956) (presumption of parental donative intent when parent pays for property for children)
- Pocius v. Fleck, 13 Ill. 2d 420 (Ill. 1958) (gift of land incomplete without delivery of deed; revocable if anything remains to be done)
- Pesovic v. Pesovic, 10 Ill. App. 3d 708 (Ill. App. 1973) (reinforces rule that land gift is ineffectual until title vests in donee)
- Shay v. Penrose, 25 Ill. 2d 447 (Ill. 1962) (discussing equitable interests arising from contracts to sell realty)
- 8930 South Harlem, Ltd. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 2d 212 (Ill. 1979) (contract to sell land is executory and does not by itself transfer title)
- Moniuszko v. Moniuszko, 238 Ill. App. 3d 523 (Ill. App. 1992) (donee bears burden of clear and convincing proof of donative intent)