A Letter of Demand of Gifted Money

[LdiJ]

Whether an attorney is worth the expense at this point can depend on the amount being demanded by the professor - but the "evidence" the professor apparently is trying to use to support his demand can be best evaluated by an attorney.

The evidence is cancelled checks. There is not much to evaluate there as the OP admits that the money was given to him/her in the form of a check. However, I agree that the amount of money involved would have a lot to do with whether or not its wise to get an attorney IF he/she gets served for a lawsuit.

Right now its just an attorney writing a demand letter.

 

[HRZ]

I am not a fan of long response letters written by laymen...they are bound to say too much and or get twisted against them ....if you write your own letter I'd keep it ultra short , like " your clients demand for money is denied"

 

[Zigner]

The evidence is cancelled checks.

Some of the evidence is cancelled checks. What the OP has to say (eventually it could be testimony) is also evidence.

 

[quincy]

The fact that what vlnaes2 says can be used against him is one good reason why it can be best for an attorney to handle all communications.

Because vlnaes2 seems a bit unclear what the demand letter is all about, an attorney can also seek clarification.

It would be nice to know the amount of money said to be owing.

 

[LdiJ]

The fact that what vlnaes2 says can be used against him is one good reason why it can be best for an attorney to handle all communications.

Because vlnaes2 seems a bit unclear what the demand letter is all about, an attorney can also seek clarification.

It would be nice to know the amount of money said to be owing.

That could certainly make a difference in what kind of advice the OP gets.

 

[Litigator22]

Your posts are incomplete and confusing. Based on what I read and a bit of guessing;

If sued, respond properly.

Other than that, whether you respond or not is up to you.


Remember, barring written proof this will come down to he said/she said. If the prof can regale the court with a believable story that he loaned you the money and your explantion is not convincing of the opposite, you could lose. The decision is based on a preponderance of the evidence.

Please pardon the intrusion, but any such decision will NOT be based upon a "preponderance of the evidence"!

To establish gift the alleged donee must prove donative intent by "CLEAR and CONVINCING" evidence; a burden of proof that is more demanding of the proponent than that which merely preponderates or out weighs, but less rigorous than beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Zigner]

Please pardon the intrusion, but any such decision will NOT be based upon a "preponderance of the evidence"!

To establish gift the alleged donee must prove donative intent by "CLEAR and CONVINCING" evidence; a burden of proof that is more demanding of the proponent than that which merely preponderates or out weighs, but less rigorous than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Please give a cite for your assertion.

 

[quincy]

Please pardon the intrusion, but any such decision will NOT be based upon a "preponderance of the evidence"!

To establish gift the alleged donee must prove donative intent by "CLEAR and CONVINCING" evidence; a burden of proof that is more demanding of the proponent than that which merely preponderates or out weighs, but less rigorous than beyond a reasonable doubt.

That the money given was a gift (or perhaps payment for caregiving services) instead of a loan might be difficult for vlnaes2 to show.

One might assume a professor would be bright enough to have a loan agreement drawn up. The professor will need to show, in absence of a written contract, that money was given and accepted (the easy part) and that there were terms understood by both that the money was to be repaid.

Illinois case Barnes v. Michalski addressing gift versus loan:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1522703.html

 

[Litigator22]

Please give a cite for your assertion.

That my good Sir, is fundamental personal property law and needs no citation of authority. But since you are asking try the following from Quincy's link to Barnes v. Michalski:

"The law presumes a gift if someone transfers property to his or her spouse or family member (Grandon v. Amcore Trust Co., 225 Ill.App.3d 630, 634, 167 Ill.Dec. 670, 588 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992)) but not if someone transfers property to a friend. Because defendant is not plaintiff's spouse or family member, she must prove all the elements of a gift by clear and convincing evidence, including donative intent. See Bowman v. Pettersen, 410 Ill. 519, 532, 102 N.E.2d 787, 794 (1951); Hall v. Eaton, 258 Ill.App.3d 893, 895, 197 Ill.Dec. 611, 631 N.E.2d 833, 836 (1994); In re Estate of Poliquin, 247 Ill.App.3d 112, 116, 186 Ill.Dec. 801, 617 N.E.2d 40, 43 (1993); 20 Ill. L. & Prac. Gifts § 46, at 333-34 (Supp.2009)." (Emphasis added)

 

[Zigner]

That my good Sir, is fundamental personal property law and needs no citation of authority. But since you are asking try the following from Quincy's link to Barnes v. Michalski:

"The law presumes a gift if someone transfers property to his or her spouse or family member (Grandon v. Amcore Trust Co., 225 Ill.App.3d 630, 634, 167 Ill.Dec. 670, 588 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992)) but not if someone transfers property to a friend. Because defendant is not plaintiff's spouse or family member, she must prove all the elements of a gift by clear and convincing evidence, including donative intent. See Bowman v. Pettersen, 410 Ill. 519, 532, 102 N.E.2d 787, 794 (1951); Hall v. Eaton, 258 Ill.App.3d 893, 895, 197 Ill.Dec. 611, 631 N.E.2d 833, 836 (1994); In re Estate of Poliquin, 247 Ill.App.3d 112, 116, 186 Ill.Dec. 801, 617 N.E.2d 40, 43 (1993); 20 Ill. L. & Prac. Gifts § 46, at 333-34 (Supp.2009)." (Emphasis added)

Thank you - I was genuinely interested in the cite - wasn't disagreeing

 

[justalayman]

Because defendant is not plaintiff's spouse or family member, she must prove all the elements of a gift by clear and convincing evidence, including donative intent.

So, reading your post, the DEFENDANT must prove donative intent?

The law presumes a gift if someone transfers property to his or her spouse or family member (Grandon v. Amcore Trust Co., 225 Ill.App.3d 630, 634, 167 Ill.Dec. 670, 588 N.E.2d 311, 315 (1992)) but not if someone transfers property to a friend. Because defendant is not plaintiff's spouse or family member, she must prove all the elements of a gift by clear and convincing evidence, including donative intent.

So what does that have to do with the plaintiffs standard of proof? How does this affect the plaintiffs requirement of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that this was a loan? In fact, using your citation the plaintiff wouldn’t even be required to anything other than the payments were made and to state they were loans. The obligation then falls upon the defendant to prove they were loans.



Seems like it doesn’t even require a preponderance of the evidence for the plaintiff to win.

 

[quincy]

So, reading your post, the DEFENDANT must prove donative intent? ...

The plaintiff needs to show there was an agreement to repay the money.

The problem for vlnaes2 is there is a legal presumption in the professor's favor that the money was a loan.

Vlnaes2 will want evidence showing the money was wages paid for taking care of the professor or something other than his/her word that the money was a gift. Witness testimony could help.

 

[justalayman]

The plaintiff needs to show there was an agreement to repay the money.

The problem for vlnaes2 is there is a legal presumption in the professor's favor that the money was a loan.

Vlnaes2 will want evidence showing the money was wages paid for taking care of the professor or something other than his/her word that the money was a gift. Witness testimony could help.

. All loans are to be repaid. The schedule may be unknown but if it is construed as a loan, repayment is a given. Unless there was some statement such as “pay me back when can” or some other repayment schedule, it would become due upon demand. Of course if the op wants to claim the guy said to repay it when she can, she would definitively prove it was a loan.


You’re the second person saying something about the money being wages. We have nothing to suggest this is the case. For all we know there was other money paid to the op for the services rendered. Even if not, it does not mean this money automatically becomes payment for services rendered. If the guy paid it as a loan, while the op might have a claim for wages owed, it does not make the money being discussed anything but a loan.

 

[quincy]

. All loans are to be repaid. The schedule may be unknown but if it is construed as a loan, repayment is a given. Unless there was some statement such as “pay me back when can” or some other repayment schedule, it would become due upon demand. Of course if the op wants to claim the guy said to repay it when she can, she would definitively prove it was a loan.


You’re the second person saying something about the money being wages. We have nothing to suggest this is the case. For all we know there was other money paid to the op for the services rendered. Even if not, it does not mean this money automatically becomes payment for services rendered. If the guy paid it as a loan, while the op might have a claim for wages owed, it does not make the money being discussed anything but a loan.

Well ... we really don't know much about the checks from the professor to vlnaes2 (including the amount).

It appears the professor and vlnaes2 had an unusual relationship. I don't know from what has been said if vlnaes2 can show the money was earned or a gift.

But my earlier advice remains the same: to tell (or have an attorney tell) the professor's attorney that vlnaes2 does not owe the professor any money, or say nothing and wait to be sued.

 

[HRZ]

BTW how much $ is this gift or loan or whatever all supposedly about.