## Facts

- William D. Yee and S. Hing Woo, unmarried residents of Chesterfield County, Virginia, had an intimate relationship for nearly 20 years and operated a restaurant together.
- In March 1989, Yee became gravely ill and believed death was imminent.
- During the two days before his death, Yee handed Woo three personal checks payable to her order for $80,000, $42,700, and $1,900.
- Yee died intestate in March 1989.
- The day after Yee’s death, Woo presented the $42,700 and $1,900 checks, and the bank paid their proceeds to her.
- The $80,000 check, drawn on a different account, was never presented for payment.
- Yee also owned securities registered solely in his name, valued at approximately $53,165, which Woo claimed in part based on alleged contributions and the parties’ confidential relationship.
- The estate administrator sought declaratory and monetary relief, contending the checks were ineffective gifts because they were not paid before Yee’s death and that Woo had no interest in the securities.
- After an ore tenus hearing, the chancellor ruled for the estate on the checks and securities; Woo appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether delivery of a donor’s personal checks shortly before death constitutes a valid gift causa mortis when the checks are not accepted or paid by the bank before the donor’s death.
2. Whether equity may impose a constructive trust to award the check proceeds despite the absence of a completed gift.
3. Whether Woo established any legal or equitable interest in securities registered solely in the decedent’s name.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the chancellor’s decree for the estate.
- The checks did not effect valid gifts causa mortis because there was no completed delivery of the underlying bank funds during Yee’s lifetime.
- Woo was not entitled to retain proceeds of the two checks paid after Yee’s death and had no right to payment on the unpresented $80,000 check.
- Woo failed to establish any legal or equitable ownership interest in the securities; they remained estate property.
- The court rejected Woo’s constructive trust theory as unsupported and insufficient to overcome the failed delivery element.

## Legal Principles

- A gift causa mortis, like a gift inter vivos, is incomplete absent delivery of the subject of the gift before the donor’s death.
- When a donor gives a personal check, the relevant property is the bank funds, and delivery of the paper instrument alone does not transfer dominion over those funds.
- Under the Uniform Commercial Code, a check does not operate as an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee bank; the bank is not liable to the payee unless it accepts or pays the check.
- Because a donor retains power to control the account (including stopping payment) until bank acceptance or payment, delivery of a personal check does not complete a transfer of the underlying funds before that event.
- Donative intent cannot substitute for the legal requirement of delivery.
- A constructive trust is not a vehicle to validate an incomplete gift absent an independent basis for equitable relief.
- A claimed equitable interest in securities titled solely in the decedent’s name requires proof of ownership or entitlement beyond a confidential relationship and unproven contributions.

## Conclusion

The court held that handing over personal checks in contemplation of death does not complete gifts causa mortis unless the bank accepts or pays the checks before the donor dies, and it refused to use equity to confer check proceeds or securities interests where delivery and ownership were not proven.


Woo v. Smart, 247 Va. 365, 442 S.E.2d 690 (Va. 1994)