## Facts

- Arthur Evans kept approximately $800,000 in securities and related items in a safe-deposit box titled solely in his name.
- Vivian Kellow, the niece of Evans’s deceased wife, provided household and caregiving assistance to the Evans family for many years and continued helping Evans after his wife’s death.
- In October 1971, about a month before his death, Evans went to his bank, spent time reviewing the safe-deposit box contents, and obtained both keys.
- Witnesses testified that Evans gave Kellow the keys and stated that the contents of the box were hers; other testimony placed the keys in Kellow’s possession and corroborated Evans’s statements.
- Evans did not add Kellow to the box registration, transfer the securities into her name, or otherwise give her authorized access to the box under the bank’s procedures.
- After Evans died, Kellow surrendered the keys to the bank but claimed the box contents as the recipient of an inter vivos gift; the executor inventoried the contents as estate property.
- Kellow filed objections to the estate inventory and distribution, asserting ownership of the safe-deposit box contents.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged donee’s evidence was sufficient to prove a valid inter vivos gift of safe-deposit box contents when the donor delivered keys and expressed donative intent but retained legal control over the box and its contents.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the dismissal of Kellow’s objections.
- The court held that no valid inter vivos gift was established because Evans did not accomplish delivery sufficient to surrender dominion and control over the safe-deposit box contents.
- The contents of the safe-deposit box were properly included in Evans’s probate estate.

## Legal Principles

- An inter vivos gift requires (1) a clear intent to presently and irrevocably divest ownership and (2) delivery—actual, constructive, or symbolic—sufficient to divest the donor of dominion and control and vest control in the donee.
- Donative intent, even if strongly supported by statements and conduct, is insufficient without delivery that completes the transfer.
- For property held in a safe-deposit box controlled by a bank, delivery generally requires objective acts that confer legally effective access or control (e.g., changing box registration, transferring title, or otherwise effectuating a relinquishment of dominion).
- The delivery requirement functions as an evidentiary safeguard in post-mortem gift claims by demanding reliable, objective proof of a completed transfer.

## Conclusion

The court enforced a strict delivery requirement for inter vivos gifts of safe-deposit box contents, concluding that handing over keys and expressing intent did not complete a gift where the donor left the box solely in his name and the alleged donee lacked legally effective access or control.


In re Estate of Evans, 467 Pa. 336, 356 A.2d 778 (Pa. 1976)