When Can You Sue for the Return of Gifted Money

[melon123]

My question involves court procedures for the state of: IL, NY


This sounds extremely weird and before anyone bashes please understand that I am talking about something that involves a dear friend of mine with a spectrum of Autism. It might have been pretty dumb for him to do that but he's really a good guy and I want to help him.

So what happened, my friend gave this girl a lot of money around $17,000 over a period of time, this amount was confirmed by her several times. He did this because she needed a lot of help and he thought she was a good person. But eventually something happened and he got really mad at her because he felt that she lied about something. They came to an agreement that he will keep helping her financially and in turn she will be a better friend, keep him happy (as defined by him), that she would not ignore him, that if she ever lies about anything or skews things (as defined by him) she forfeits all the gifts and has to return him all the money he's given to her and if for any reason that he is unhappy with how she is treating him, he can tell her to return all the money and she would have to. She agreed to all this several times and providing her name and bank account # at times with it.

All the correspondence happened through text messages over several months so essentially it is from her. Yes they met in person and hung out as well. After some time he stops helping her, after a while he starts again. She asks the question if the money is a gift, he says yes. They agreed to this before. They don't repeat of any the same clauses and she says that the money he gives her isn't a loan.

Well recently she asked him to pay off a bill of hers and immediately after he done that, she disappears with someone saying she is busy studying for some exam. Basically all the sudden she starts to ignore him and cannot send him any correspondence whatsoever because she is busy. So I told him that I think it is time to sue her back for the money.

Several things: He did contact her family and her friends but he done so before and he did that because he got extremely stressed out. But she wrote forgiving him essentially. She claims she is threatened because he said he will sue her for the money (something they spoke about the agreement way early on agreeing that if she won't return the money he can sue her and she will pay all legal costs). Her friends claimed he harassed her but never gave any specifics whatsoever, he does have a tendency to send out a lot of email or texts or whatever in a short period of time but this wasn't something she ever had a problem with and he done it a lot of times with no complaints from her.

All the communication regarding the agreement happened through text messages which he has all of them. He had them written in almost same way you would read on a contract:

"That you [girl's name] agree that the money I [my friend's name] is a gift and will remain as a gift within the set following conditions [list of conditions I wrote out earlier] and that no other agreement can ever break this one or supersede it."

He has caught her lying several times but as per the agreement he can choose to continue to help her but if he feels that her treatment of him isn't good he can use the lies she told as a reason to get the money back. Both of them are 21, the agreement was made in NY but they said it would apply anywhere in the US.

So my question is does my friend have a case? Do I need to post the actual language of the agreement?

If not what could have the text messages have said in order for it to be a stronger case?

sorry if this isn't the right place to post this.

[Mr. Knowitall]

A gift is a gift, not a loan. You don't get to sue for the return of gifts. You give them, they're gone.

If you send somebody money with a "contract" that begins, "you [girl's name] agree that the money I [my friend's name] is a gift and will remain as a gift", you're simply affirming that it's a gift. The part about gifts remaining gifts? All gifts remain gifts. You might have written that they were interest free loans that would be forgiven under certain circumstances, but by characterizing them as gifts you did your friend no favors in terms of his trying to claw them back. If you want to help your friend, stop trying to be his lawyer and start helping him find a better object for his affections.

"If I decide you're a meanie you have to give back the gifts I gave you?" That should be a fun one to argue in court, especially if he's continuing to give her additional gifts despite her already having proved herself (in his mind) to be a meanie.

[melon123]

Makes sense but what was written was that the money is a gift in the sense it is not to be ever repaired but if my friend becomes upset or she lies that the gift is no longer considered a gift but a loan.

her response was to agree and say she would never lie but she agreed that it will not be a gift if he is upset with her.

basically the idea was that she would never repay him the money as long as he kept her promise. a loan seems to suggest that there is a requirement for pay back.

so wouldn't her agreeing to terminate the money as a gift and make it into a loan mean anything?

i just don't seem to understand how can a gift stay a gift even if both parties agree that it is only a gift as decided by one person?

also what if he defined what gift meant before the start of the contract that the term "gift" is to always refer to a loan and the debt from that loan would be forgiven? he also defined a loan as money given on a temporary basis that needs to be paid back fully within 2 weeks of given date unless otherwise stated?

if terms are defined wouldn't that change things?

[melon123]

the reason it was called a gift is because he couldn't find a better word for it but he made it clear and asked her several times if she understood that "gift" between them would not mean what it usually means and she understood and even got mad once saying she understood it and to stop asking.

i mean if he defined it and made sure she understood would the traditional meaning of the word make sense?

[Dogmatique]

A gift is a gift, not a loan. You don't get to sue for the return of gifts. You give them, they're gone.

If you send somebody money with a "contract" that begins, "you [girl's name] agree that the money I [my friend's name] is a gift and will remain as a gift", you're simply affirming that it's a gift. The part about gifts remaining gifts? All gifts remain gifts. You might have written that they were interest free loans that would be forgiven under certain circumstances, but by characterizing them as gifts you did your friend no favors in terms of his trying to claw them back. If you want to help your friend, stop trying to be his lawyer and start helping him find a better object for his affections.

"If I decide you're a meanie you have to give back the gifts I gave you?" That should be a fun one to argue in court, especially if he's continuing to give her additional gifts despite her already having proved herself (in his mind) to be a meanie.

Agree, 10000%.

[melon123]

my question still remains since this was never characterized as a "gift" it was defined specifically what that word meant between them and she was asked numerous times to the point she got angry about being asked so many times and she understood and agreed to using tha term. wouldn't that change anything?

[melon123]

i am not understanding how exactly can someone accept the defined terms, understand the defined terms, acknowledge the "gift" is actually a loan and yet it all to be a gift?

basically what happened is that party A and party B came into agreement that in their agreement the term "gift" would mean a loan that would be forgiven under prescribed conditions and loan would refer to money that they borrowed and would to pay back. Party B understood and accepted the terms and acknowledged their acceptance numerous times. they also referred to the "gifts" as loans on a few occasions and called them loans and understood the term gift did not make the money given to be an actual gift.

yet apparently just because of the word even though both parties understood that it meant something else and acknowledged it was something else yet it overrides all that? im confused on that.

[Michael44]

The person with standing to sue could file a complaint in the small claims court - only up to the limit allowed - and then provide all of the evidence of a conditional agreement. There are also possible remedies in equity (instead of in law) that you could assert. You can see what the judge says.

Filing a regular legal action for the full amount would likely not be good from a cost / possible benefit standpoint.

[melon123]

well she did agree to cover all legal fees including court and attorney costs. what you mean by cost/possible benefit standpoint?

[Michael44]

what you mean by cost/possible benefit standpoint?

I mean that with a regular legal action, you could dish out tons of money and (maybe) not get anything back.

With a small claims action, you may be able to get some money back (there is a limit - in some states $5000 - on how much you can sue for), but it wouldn't cost very much in any case. You just have to pay a filing fee and a fee to serve the defendant. It's worth a try, because you don't stand to lose much in a small claims case. You can at least rattle the defendant a little bit.