In Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432, 442, this court observed: "It has been uniformly held, whenever the question has arisen, that the gift of a husband's or father's entire estate to a wife or child by way of advancement is unreasonable."
Summary of this case from Scanlon v. ScanlonNo. 102 Sept.Term 2012
2012-06-25
Pool v. Phillips
Opinion of the Court of Special Appeals unreported (No. 2831, Sept. Term 2010).
Disposition: Denied.
In Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432, 442, this court observed: "It has been uniformly held, whenever the question has arisen, that the gift of a husband's or father's entire estate to a wife or child by way of advancement is unreasonable."
Summary of this case from Scanlon v. ScanlonIn Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432, 442, this court observed: `It has been uniformly held, whenever the question has arisen, that the gift of a husband's or father's entire estate to a wife or child by way of advancement is unreasonable.' Other factors tending to overcome the presumption of a gift where the husband has paid the purchase price, are the making of improvements, payment of taxes and the mortgage debt, occupancy of the premises as a home and a place of business, and the exercise of control and management of the property.
Summary of this case from Coates v. CoatesIn Pool v. Phillips, 167 Ill. 432, 442, this court observed: `It has been uniformly held, whenever the question has arisen, that the gift of a husband's or father's entire estate to a wife or child by way of advancement is unreasonable.
Summary of this case from Bruin v. BruinFull title:Pool v. Phillips
Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date published: Jun 25, 2012
Among the circumstances which tend to rebut the presumption of a gift or advancement, or to show that the…
Houdek v. EhrenbergerWhere, by or at the direction of a parent, a deed is executed to his child, the facts that the parent…