Can I sue for a gift that I never got?

[bud1415]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

My Mother and Father-in-law gave me and my wife a card for our wedding that said they were going to give us $2500 to move to a new apartment. But we are no longer on good terms. Can I sue them for the $2500?

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

My Mother and Father-in-law gave me and my wife a card for our wedding that said they were going to give us $2500 to move to a new apartment. But we are no longer on good terms. Can I sue them for the $2500?

You have got to be kidding. So, they changed their minds. You cannot sue for a gift that you didn't get. Grow up.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Missouri

My Mother and Father-in-law gave me and my wife a card for our wedding that said they were going to give us $2500 to move to a new apartment. But we are no longer on good terms. Can I sue them for the $2500?

No - you cannot successfully sue for a gift.

 

[ALGURLX1]

I just spit soda on myself after reading the title only!!! Let me tally up what would have been my Christmas gifts the year my mother and father both lost there jobs, and then our house, and one car

 

[swalsh411]

Wouldn't this be a textbook case of promissory estoppel?

 

[Mass_Shyster]

Wouldn't this be a textbook case of promissory estoppel?

The children would have had to change their position in reliance of the gift in order to invoke promissory estoppel.

 

[justalayman]

The children would have had to change their position in reliance of the gift in order to invoke promissory estoppel.

so, you are saying if they did rent a new apartment based on the promise, they would have a claim?

 

[Antigone*]

Wouldn't this be a textbook case of promissory estoppel?

The OP and his new bride would not have used this "promise" to find a place to live ~ they needed to get that anyway.

I'm sure it would have been nice to have help but that didn't happen, and the only thing SIL and daughter will manage to do is to further damage their relationship with the In-laws.

I don't see it as so "textbook," but then again that is just MHO.

 

[justalayman]

The OP and his new bride would not have used this "promise" to find a place to live ~ they needed to get that anyway.

I'm sure it would have been nice to have help but that didn't happen, and the only thing SIL and daughter will manage to do is to further damage their relationship with the In-laws.

I don't see it as so "textbook," but then again that is just MHO.

I do know there have been cases where colleges sued for an unfulfilled promise of a donation and won.

 

[Antigone*]

I do know there have been cases where colleges sued for an unfulfilled promise of a donation and won.

My argument is that they needed a place to live anyway and they would have gotten it without the in-laws help.

I am sure that a university who got a promise of a donation and won got more than "Hey I think I'll give you a million bucks to help out."

 

[tranquility]

There is a different rule for charitable donations where the charity relied on the promise.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

so, you are saying if they did rent a new apartment based on the promise, they would have a claim?

Maybe.

The example I remember was someone pledged a bag of money to a library, and the library started construction on an addition, relying on the donation. The donor changed his mind, and the library sued. Library won based on Promissory Estoppel.

I suppose in this case, the kids could hire a moving company, move to the new apartment, and sue mom and dad claiming they would not have hired the moving company and they would have rented a U-haul instead, were it not for the promise of the money.

Since the kids need a place to live, it's going to be a tough argument that they relied on the promise. $2500 won't keep them in an apartment for long. Assuming they sign a 1 year lease, that would only bump the rent by $200 a month.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

There is a different rule for charitable donations where the charity relied on the promise.

I thought that rule was promissory estoppel. What is it called?

 

[justalayman]

Since the kids need a place to live, it's going to be a tough argument that they relied on the promise. $2500 won't keep them in an apartment for long. Assuming they sign a 1 year lease, that would only bump the rent by $200 a month.

the problem is: this is not just a gift. It was a gift based upon an action by the OP so, if OP has already taken such an action or actually take the action before the gift is rescinded, inlaws need to pony up the $2.5k.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

the problem is: this is not just a gift. It was a gift based upon an action by the OP so, if OP has already taken such an action or actually take the action before the gift is rescinded, inlaws need to pony up the $2.5k.

Another piece I recall is that the reliance must be reasonable. so, was it reasonable for the kids to rely on the promised gift?

I was once told by a law professor: "If all you're going to court on is promissory estoppel, you've got a tough row to hoe."