The supporting argument is an extended analysis of the basic requirements of a valid gift, and a comparison of the evidentiary facts herein in an effort to show the fulfillment of the requirements of a gift inter vivos. See Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Baker, 182 Okla. 191, 77 P.2d 23; Harmon v. Kerns, 169 Okla. 290, 36 P.2d 898; Anselman v. Oklahoma City Univ., 197 Okla. 529, 172 P.2d 782. Defendant's answer originally plead a promise by plaintiff to convey if defendant would give up her employment and move to plaintiff's home, and that such oral agreement and understanding was sufficient consideration for the conveyance.
¶ 6 To sustain a parol gift of real estate, the evidence in support thereof must go further than a mere preponderance; the same must be clear, explicit, and convincing as to every element necessary to constitute such a valid gift. There must be (1) intention to give; (2) delivery; and (3) acceptance. Travelers Ins Co. of Hartford, Conn v. Baker, 1938 OK 150, 182 Okla 191, 77 P.2d 23. ¶ 7 In a case of purely equitable cognizance, the trial court's judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly against the weight of the evidence.