IS IT A GIFT OR A LOAN?

JD v. AD, 2017 NY Slip Op 50261 - NY: Supreme Court, Richmond 2017:

"The essential elements of any cause of action to recover damages for a breach of contract are, (1) the existence of a contract, (2) the plaintiff's performance pursuant to the contract, (3) the defendant's breach of its contractual obligations, and (4) damages resulting from that breach. See 143 Bergen St. LLC v. Ruderman, 144 AD3d 1002 (2d Dept. 2016); See also Tudor Ins. Co. v. Unithree Inv. Corp., 137 AD3d 1259 (2d Dept. 2016). The burden of proving the existence, terms and validity of a contract rests on the party seeking to enforce it. See Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kingston Oil Supply Corp. 134 AD3d 750 (2d Dept. 2015).

In contrast, a defendant attempting to establish that a particular transaction was a gift, rather than a loan, has the burden of proof to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the transaction was made with the requisite "donative intent." See Phelps v. Phelps, 128 AD3d 1545 (4th Dept. 2015) As Defendant Husband has alluded to the Statute of Frauds, it is worth noting that certain contracts must be set forth in a writing. See General Obligations Law § 5-701; See also, Taranto v. Fritz, 83 AD2d 864 (2d Dept. 1981). However, an oral agreement may be enforceable so long as the terms are clear and definite and the conduct of the parties evinces mutual assent sufficiently definite to assure that the parties are truly in agreement with respect to all material terms. See Kramer v. Greene, 142 AD3d 438 (1st Dept. 2016). An oral contract to repay a loan may be enforceable if the elements indicated above are met. See Alameldin v. Kings Castle Caterers, Inc., 53 AD3d 514 (2d Dept. 2008); See also King Serv. v. O'Brien, 206 AD2d 728 (3rd Dept. 1994).

Decision

Defendant Wife concedes that she and her Husband borrowed the money from her father. While this is not conclusive proof as to Husband, it is some evidence of the existence of a loan. Wife credibly testified that she and Husband were well aware that this loan had to be repaid in full within six months of the closing of the Amboy Road property. Her testimony, like the testimony of Plaintiff and J.C., was credible. Wife claims that Husband's claim that this money was a gift (notwithstanding the markings on each check indicating it was a loan) is in furtherance of a scorched earth litigation strategy against her and her family. Wife and Plaintiff also credibly testified that Husband agreed to repay Plaintiff the $280,000 only if Wife gave up custody of the two subject children in the underlying divorce case.

Beyond the admissions of Wife, this Court finds that Plaintiff has independently established the necessary elements of his breach of contract cause of action. Here, the contract at issue was oral in nature. Plaintiff credibly testified that he provided his daughter and son in law the combined sum of $280,000 on the condition that it be paid back within six months of the closing, without interest. While the terms of the contract were agreed to between the parties orally, both of the checks at issue clearly indicated that the amounts provided were "loans." (See Pl. Exs. 1;3). Plaintiff further established that Defendant Husband's conduct evidenced that he understood the terms, as Husband sent two text messages to Defendant Wife indicating that he knew that the amount was borrowed, and had to be paid back within six months. (See Pl. Exs. 5;6). See Burnside v. Foglia, 208 AD2d 1085 (3rd Dept. 1994). Accordingly, this Court finds that Plaintiff has established the existence of a contract by a preponderance of the evidence. See Van Wie Chevrolet, Inc. v. General Motors, LLC 145 AD3d 1 (4th Dept. 2016).

In opposition, Husband argues that the transaction at issue was actually a gift from Plaintiff to his daughter, as opposed to a loan. However, this Court finds Husband's testimony in support of this defense to be patently unbelievable, particularly in light of his own text admissions. Indeed, when asked why he would believe this money was a $280,000 gift when, in fact each check had the word "loan" written on them, he could offer no explanation other than to suggest that Plaintiff had given his daughter gifts in the past. As Husband has failed to provide any evidence of donative intent on the part of Plaintiff, his defense must fail. See In re Estate of MacGregor, 119 AD2d 909 (3rd Dept. 1986); See also Phelps v. Phelps, 128 AD3d 1545 (4th Dept. 2015). Accordingly, after listing to the testimony and considering the evidence at trial, this Court finds that the $280,000 given by Plaintiff to defendants was a loan, and not a gift as claimed by Husband.

The second element of a breach of contract action is not in dispute as both Defendants admit that they received the two checks totaling $280,000 that were deposited into their joint account. Accordingly, Plaintiff fulfilled his end of the contract by providing the funds. Plaintiff further established that the defendants herein breached the contract when they did not repay the sums loaned within the six month time period allotted, or upon his subsequent demand for repayment. Finally, the Court finds that the Plaintiff sustained damages as he has not recovered any of the amount that he loaned the parties.

Defendant Husband argues, in the alternative, that even if this Court were to find that the $280,000 given by Plaintiff to the defendants was a loan, that loan would be unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. (Gen. Obl. Law Sec. 5-701(a). That statute provides, inter alia, that an agreement, is void unless it is reduced to a writing if by its terms it is not capable of being performed within one year's time. See General Obligations Law § 5-701(a).

Defendant Husband's reliance on the Statute of Frauds is wholly unpersuasive. First, and foremost this affirmative defense was not asserted in his Verified Answer (Pl. Ex. 8) and is therefore unavailable to him. See Ryan v. Kellogg Partners Institutional Servs., 79 AD3d 447 (1st Dept. 2010). Nor has the defendant made an application to amend his answer. See Zito v. County of Suffolk, 81 AD3d 722 (2d Dept. 2011). Moreover, even if this defense was properly before this Court (which it is not), it would not prevent Plaintiff's recovery here. The credible testimony of Plaintiff and Wife coupled with Husband's own text admissions confirm that the he and Wife had six months in which to repay the debt. As this debt was payable within one year, this statute would not apply even if it were properly plead. See Weksler v. Weksler, 140 AD3d 491 (1st Dept. 2016).

Husband next argues that if this Court finds that these funds constituted a loan, then it was a loan made only to Wife for which he bears no legal responsibility. This argument is equally unpersuasive. First, the Court credits Plaintiff's testimony that the loan was intended for the defendants as Husband and Wife. In fact, the loan benefitted Husband more than Wife, as it was intended to purchase property to house his electrical business. Moreover, as this loan was given during the defendant's marriage, and it obviously benefited both defendants, it constitutes marital debt that should be shared by the parties. See Gillman v. Gillman, 139 AD3d 667 (2d Dep't. 2016)."