## Facts

- Bernice Jones bought multiple $10,000 certificates of deposit (CDs) using her own funds; three were payable to “Jones or” each of three relatives, as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
- The CDs stated they were nonnegotiable, nontransferable, not subject to check, and payable only upon return of the certificate properly endorsed.
- Jones kept sole possession of the CDs at all times and never delivered them to the named relatives.
- Before the CDs’ maturity period ended, Jones cashed the three CDs and retained the principal and interest proceeds.
- The relatives sued Jones for conversion, alleging the CDs were completed inter vivos gifts.
- Jones asserted she intended the relatives to take only at her death if she had not previously cashed the CDs and moved for summary judgment based on lack of delivery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Jones, finding no genuine dispute of material fact because delivery was undisputed.

## Issues

1. Whether CDs titled jointly with right of survivorship constituted completed inter vivos gifts when the purchaser retained exclusive possession and never delivered the certificates.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where lack of delivery was undisputed, even if donative intent was contested.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Jones.
- The court held the CDs were not completed inter vivos gifts because there was no delivery and Jones retained dominion and control.
- Any dispute about Jones’s intent was not material because delivery is required to effect a present, irrevocable transfer.
- Titling the CDs as joint tenants with right of survivorship did not substitute for delivery where Jones retained unilateral control and could cash the CDs.

## Legal Principles

- A valid inter vivos gift requires (1) present, irrevocable donative intent and (2) delivery to the donee (or to someone for the donee).
- Delivery must transfer dominion and control; the donor must irrevocably divest title and control at the time of the alleged gift.
- Where an instrument is payable only upon return of the certificate, retention of the certificate by the alleged donor is strong evidence of continued control and lack of delivery.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the absence of delivery is undisputed and, as a matter of law, defeats a claimed inter vivos gift.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the donor because an inter vivos gift of the CDs failed as a matter of law: the donor never delivered the certificates and therefore never relinquished dominion and control, making any dispute over intent immaterial.


Irvin v. Jones, 832 S.W.2d 827 (Ark. 1992)