## Facts

- Kenneth Lay, Sr. owned two valuable paintings (worth about $1 million) and executed estate-planning documents providing that property he owned at death would pass to the Kenneth James Lay Trust for the benefit of his sons, Bradley E. Lay and Kenneth J. Lay, Jr.
- Rosalie Richards had an on-again, off-again romantic relationship with Lay for more than ten years; Lay often gave her gifts and they traveled together.
- Richards claimed that on April 3, 2009, Lay gave her the two paintings as a birthday present at her birthday party and stated the paintings were her gift.
- Richards supported her claim with her own affidavit and an affidavit from her mother stating that each heard Lay say the paintings were Richards’s birthday present.
- Richards also submitted an affidavit from Lay’s friend, Dr. Gerald Sutherland, stating that Lay told him he would “take care of” Richards.
- Richards initially took the paintings to her home, but around May 2009—before Lay underwent surgery—the paintings were returned to Lay’s residence; the meaning of that return (safekeeping vs. lack of completed gift or a condition tied to the surgery) was contested.
- Lay survived the surgery but later died on January 1, 2010, with the paintings still at his residence.
- After Richards demanded possession and the demand was refused, she sued the co-trustees/co-executors (including Mark Wasylyshyn and Bradd Smith) and Lay’s sons, seeking declaratory judgment, replevin, and conversion.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court admitted Lay’s statements under Ohio Evid. R. 804(B)(3) (statements against interest), granted summary judgment to Richards, declared the paintings were inter vivos gifts, and ordered defendants to transfer the paintings to her.
- Bradley and Kenneth Lay, Jr. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Richards on the ground that Lay made a completed, unconditional inter vivos gift of the paintings as a matter of law.
2. Whether the trial court erred by denying the Lays’ motion for summary judgment asserting that Richards could not prove a valid inter vivos gift and that the paintings remained property of the estate/trust.
3. Whether the summary-judgment record— including Lay’s out-of-court statements admitted under hearsay exceptions—eliminated genuine disputes of material fact on donative intent, delivery, and the effect of returning the paintings to Lay’s residence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the record permitted competing findings about Lay’s intent—an outright present gift versus a transfer tied to his impending surgery (a conditional transfer that would fail if he recovered)—and those disputes could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- The court explained that the return of the paintings to Lay’s residence, and the fact they remained there until his death, supported an inference inconsistent with an immediate, unconditional gift.
- The court also concluded that neither side was entitled to judgment as a matter of law: Richards had evidence that could support a gift, while the Lays had evidence supporting the absence of a completed gift, leaving the dispute for trial.
- Even assuming Lay’s statements were admissible under Evid. R. 804(B)(3), admissibility did not make Richards’s version conclusive or remove the need for fact-finding.

## Legal Principles

- A valid inter vivos gift requires: (1) intent to make an immediate, unconditional transfer, (2) delivery, and (3) acceptance; the claimed donee must prove the gift by clear and convincing evidence.
- Summary judgment is improper when reasonable factfinders could reach different conclusions from the evidence; courts may not weigh evidence or decide credibility on a Civ.R. 56 record.
- A transfer made only in contemplation of an event (such as a serious surgery) can be treated as conditional; if the condition fails, the transfer is not an enforceable inter vivos gift.
- Statements of a deceased declarant may be admissible under hearsay exceptions (including statements against interest under Evid. R. 804(B)(3)), but such statements remain subject to evaluation alongside surrounding circumstances and do not, by themselves, establish a gift as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

In *Richards v. Wasylyshyn*, the Ohio court of appeals held that conflicting evidence about whether Kenneth Lay, Sr. intended an immediate, unconditional inter vivos gift of two valuable paintings to Rosalie Richards—or instead made a transfer tied to his impending surgery—created genuine issues of material fact, so summary judgment for Richards (and for the Lays) was improper and the case had to proceed to trial.


Richards v. Wasylyshyn, 977 N.E.2d 1053 (2012)