The Court of Appeal in Zoob v. Jordan, analyzed the legal elements of a gift in disposing martial properties and post-divorce.

Parties were married abroad and separated via agreement and disposed all marital properties before moving to the District.  In DC, Jordan purchased two properties evidence suggesting he intended to include Zoob as joint owner.  Parties separated again, and the property ownership because the subject of litigation.

The trial court determined that Jordan had the manifest and requisite intent to make the joint title transfers, but concluded that as ultimately Zoob’s name did not appear on either apartment’s title — Jordan had failed to effect the transfer and that the apartments accordingly remained his sole property.

The trial court further upheld the separation agreement issued abroad and concluded any property acquired by the parties subsequent to the separation date is the sole property of the party who acquired it, and as Jordan had paid for the apartments with his own personal funds, and was the sole title holder, Zoob had no valid legal claim.  Although there was an intent to include Zoob, as there was no transfer of title, thus no ownership was vested.

The Court of Appeals applying hybrid legal criteria including equitable remedy and a legal gift concluded otherwise.

The essential legal elements of a gift are donative intent, delivery, and acceptance. Zoob had to prove each element of a legal gift was established in order to assert a successful property claim.

The evidence at trial established that Jordan had intended to relinquish all interest and control as to the joint ownership.  He has communicated to the condominium board that he wanted to include Zoob as joint owner of the properties both in writing and later via emails/calls. Zoob had acted as general contractor for renovating the properties using her own funds for renovations and thus some funds were commingled.  The notation on the Statement of Ownership document that was signed by Jordan during the settlement contained an explicit statement: “to be amended later to reflect joint ownership by Xavier Jordan and Marina Zoob (wife)”.

So clearly there was sufficient evidence of intent.  As to delivery, the second legal element, such can be accomplished by bill of sale or other written evidence of the transfer, or by an overt act or word or both.

Thus, Proof of delivery is indispensable, and there must be some act or an equivalent to it.  The Court concluded that Jordan delivered to Zoob the intended gift of a joint ownership interest in each of the apartments by a written notation on the Statement of Ownership stating that the ownership contract was to be amended to reflect Zoob’s joint ownership.

The Co-operative Apartment Ownership Contracts were both signed and approved by the cooperative association reflecting the board’s approval of Zoob as joint owner even though she was not a titled owner.

In sum, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court’s ruling as to deficiency in delivery in that the property remained titled solely in the Jordan’s name was erroneous as a matter fact and law.  That delivery was sufficiently effectuated.

This ruling, highlights the Court’s desire to dispense property even if purchased solely and after separation as marital and to extend equitable remedies in a domestic, post-divorce setting.  Arguably, property purchased with a domestic partner must include a property ownership contract to clarify property ownership interest and to delineate and detail all property interests.

Refer to our Washington DC Divorce lawyer page for more details on marital properties.