Banking Law Clarifcation Needed - "Gift"

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

Actually there is no "law" that can help this guy. It was his lack of common sense that got him in this situation. There was no theft since the money they took was legally theirs.

Had the OP done things in the right manner, he wouldn't be here.

He is going to go round and round in circles and get a big fat NOTHING. There is no legal remedy for his stupidity.

I disagree. (You're most likely right though). It is possible for the OP to seek repayment from his friend(s). He would need to PROVE that there was no gifting involved, but rather, that the money was merely given to the other folks for safe keeping.

[CAD125]

From most to least pertinent (IMO):

Originally Posted by Zigner

I disagree. (You're most likely right though). It is possible for the OP to seek repayment from his friend(s). He would need to PROVE that there was no gifting involved, but rather, that the money was merely given to the other folks for safe keeping.

I have heard Zigner's opinion a small but significant enough amount of times to make me reconsider the absolute 100% one size fits all accuracy of the generalized blanket statement that "all money put into someone's account are ALWAYS theres" regardless of situation, circumstance, or intent. And while it would certainly put a have burden of proof on me; its one I think I can meet; so if his above statement is accurate and applicable to my circumstance, I wanted to get further information and specifics on it. How, if at all, that statement interacts with the banking law is what prompted this second thread.

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

But the part that really puts a nail in the coffers here is that promissory note - this effectively removes any possibility of criminal charges and leaves you with only civil remedies to pursue...which you have been advised to try

I was told by council, the assistant DA's office, and the detective's investigating my case; that having a promissory note and or a civil action (whether successful, unsuccessful, or in process), does not strictly prohibit me from filing criminal charges; could you please explain what you mean.

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

The example I used was to illustrate how intent is not necessarily an essential component in deciding whether something is or is not a gift, contrary to this statement:

My comments regarding your example were (beyond the unfair nature) that I DID see the father's money having intent as a gift he was giving to support his children, and would therefore be a gift in the legal sense.

If something can be considered a gift WITHOUT donative intent, then why is it listed as one of the 3 key factors for a legally described gift in every reference I have sought out. I am not trying to rebut your statement, I am trying to get clarification.

Originally Posted by Dogmatique

There may be circumstances. But to delve into the "what ifs" goes far beyond the scope of this forum and not only because your situation is actually quite straightforward.

I understand this is not the place for exploring EVERY single possibility, I was just trying to see if there were any easily describable standards or boundary conditions for the question I was asking. Thank you again for your time and replies.

[Proserpina]

Originally Posted by CAD125

From most to least pertinent (IMO):



I have heard Zigner's opinion a small but significant enough amount of times to make me reconsider the absolute 100% one size fits all accuracy of the generalized blanket statement that "all money put into someone's account are ALWAYS theres" regardless of situation, circumstance, or intent. And while it would certainly put a have burden of proof on me; its one I think I can meet; so if his above statement is accurate and applicable to my circumstance, I wanted to get further information and specifics on it. How, if at all, that statement interacts with the banking law is what prompted this second thread.




I was told by council, the assistant DA's office, and the detective's investigating my case; that having a promissory note and or a civil action (whether successful, unsuccessful, or in process), does not strictly prohibit me from filing criminal charges; could you please explain what you mean.



My comments regarding your example were (beyond the unfair nature) that I DID see the father's money having intent as a gift he was giving to support his children, and would therefore be a gift in the legal sense.

If something can be considered a gift WITHOUT donative intent, then why is it listed as one of the 3 key factors for a legally described gift in every reference I have sought out. I am not trying to rebut your statement, I am trying to get clarification.



I understand this is not the place for exploring EVERY single possibility, I was just trying to see if there were any easily describable standards or boundary conditions for the question I was asking. Thank you again for your time and replies.

Seriously - hire an attorney.