In Northern Trust v. Delly , Richard Sakris sued Patricia Delly for the return of "gifts" -- an engagement ring and an interest in real property -- which were supposedly given in anticipation of marriage.
When the engagement was called off, Richard wanted his stuff back.
In response to the parties' motion practice, the Monroe County Supreme Court sided (in part) with Richard and directed that the real property be held in "trust" until a trial was conducted.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, was of the view Richard had submitted conflicting evidence as to the terms of the gifts made to Patricia.
In one account, Richard gave the ring as a birthday gift, while the real estate was transferred in contemplation of marriage. In another instance, Richard claimed both had been given as engagement gifts.
Faced with those contradictory statements, the AD4 thought the disposition of the entire matter needed to await a formal hearing.
Does any of this ring true?
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Northern Trust v. Delly