## Facts

- In 1963, Dorothy B. Edinburg created three irrevocable inter vivos trusts, one for each child (John, Hope, and Jo-Ann), naming her husband and his relatives as trustees.
- Dorothy, a wealthy art collector, transferred various assets over time in a manner reflecting a practice of placing artwork into the children’s trusts while keeping physical custody for safekeeping.
- A dispute arose over nineteen drawings/artworks that Dorothy alternately claimed were trust assets and her personal property.
- Evidence showed the artworks were labeled or stamped to indicate trust ownership, and Dorothy directed preparation of a list assigning each artwork to a particular child’s trust.
- Dorothy retained possession of the artworks and access to the vault where they were stored, and later argued this defeated any “delivery” to the trusts.
- The litigation also concerned a parcel of real property in Jacksonville, Vermont, which the beneficiaries contended belonged to Hope’s trust.
- In related divorce and trust-accounting proceedings, Dorothy took inconsistent positions about whether the artworks and other property were hers individually or belonged to the trusts.
- After trial, a probate judge found Dorothy had transferred the artworks to the trusts by gift or sale and found the Vermont parcel was held by Hope’s trust.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Dorothy effectively transferred the nineteen artworks to the children’s trusts despite retaining physical possession and vault access.
2. Whether the probate judge clearly erred in finding the Jacksonville, Vermont real property was owned by Hope’s trust.
3. Whether the probate judge’s findings on intent, delivery, and ownership were clearly erroneous on appellate review.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed the judgment.
- The court upheld the finding that Dorothy had transferred the nineteen artworks to the children’s trusts by gift or sale.
- The court upheld the finding that the Jacksonville, Vermont parcel was owned by the trust for Hope.
- The court rejected the argument that retention of possession or vault keys necessarily negated delivery, given the nature of the property and the objective evidence of transfer.
- The court held Dorothy failed to show the probate judge’s findings were clearly erroneous, particularly where credibility and competing inferences were central.

## Legal Principles

- An inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery (which may be constructive or symbolic when appropriate), and acceptance.
- For fragile or difficult-to-move property, constructive or symbolic delivery may satisfy the delivery element when objective acts and documentation show a transfer of dominion and control.
- A donor’s retention of physical custody for safekeeping does not, by itself, defeat a completed transfer when intent to divest and indicia of ownership in the transferee are otherwise established.
- Appellate courts defer to probate findings of fact, including credibility determinations, and will not reverse unless the findings are clearly erroneous; the appellant bears the burden to demonstrate clear error.
- A party’s admissions and prior statements about ownership may be treated as evidence of intent and ownership, and later self-serving recantations may be discounted by the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed findings that Dorothy had effectively transferred nineteen artworks to her children’s irrevocable trusts through clear indicia of intent and constructive delivery, and that a Vermont parcel was owned by one child’s trust; Dorothy did not meet her burden to show the probate judge’s ownership determinations were clearly erroneous.


Edinburg v. Edinburg, 492 N.E.2d 1164 (Mass. App. Ct. 1986)