Amratlal C. Bhagat

Summary

The Court held that a parent seeking to rebut the presumption that a transfer of property to an adult child was a gift must do so by clear and convincing evidence, limited to evidence antecedent to, contemporaneous with, or immediately following the transfer, together with statements by the parties concerning the transfer's purpose and effect. It also held that judicial estoppel does not apply to an inconsistent position taken in litigation resolved by settlement because no court accepted that position in entering judgment, although the prior statements may be used as admissions and for impeachment. Because the record contained statements creating genuine issues concerning whether the stock transfers were unconditional gifts or temporary transfers for business purposes, summary judgment for the son was improper and the matter was remanded for trial.