Berman v. Berman

Grason, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On the 10th day of March, 1948, Meyer N. Berman signed and sealed a deed whereby he attempted to grant and convey unto Harry Berman and Bernard Berman nine leasehold lots, with improvements, in the City of Baltimore. The grantees in this pretended deed were his nephews, sons of his brother Jacob Berman. Meyer N. Berman was then, and for many years had been married to Rae Berman.

They were separated for many years. She lived in Front Royal, Virginia, and conducted a business; he resided in the City of Baltimore. On the 9th day of June, 1948, Meyer N. Berman died, leaving a will in which he bequeathed all his personal property to his “estate”, and Rae Berman, his wife, was appointed Administratrix c. t. a. of his estate by the Orphans’ Court of Baltimore City. This pretended deed was never acknowledged and recorded.

The wife of the deceased and his brother Jacob are the nearest kin of Meyer N. Berman, deceased. On January 21,1949, Harry Berman and Bernard Berman filed an amended bill of complaint in the Circuit ⁶¹⁶ Court No. 2 of Baltimore City against Rae Berman, individually, and as administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of Meyer N. Berman, and Jacob Berman. After stating the facts previously related, the amended bill recited that Maxwell Weinberg witnessed the so-called deed and that on the day it was signed and sealed Meyer N. Berman delivered the same to Harry Berman and Bernard Berman and declared it to be an absolute gift of the nine leasehold properties it purported to convey. It is further alleged “that the gift of the leasehold properties by the late Meyer N. Berman to the said Harry Berman and Bernard Berman was an immediate gratuitous, voluntary and unconditional transfer of all interest of the said Meyer N. Berman in said properties with no power of revocation by the donor or a revesting of any estate in said properties to the donor".

The amended bill prays: a. A decree declaring the deed aforesaid to be an absolute and irrevocable gift of the lots therein described, whereby title in said leasehold properties became vested in the plaintiffs; b. that Rae Berman, administratrix c. t. a., account for the rents and profits received by her from the above described lots of ground; and c. for further relief. To this amended bill of complaint Rae Berman, individually, filed a demurrer, and also filed a demurrer as administratrix c. t. a. of the estate of Meyer N. Berman, deceased. Counsel for the plaintiffs told the court that the plaintiffs did not desire to plead further, and the court passed a decree dismissing the first amended bill of complaint, with costs to the defendants.' From this decree the case comes here on appeal..

The appellants contend that notwithstanding the grantor in the deed did not acknowledge the same to be his act before an officer authorized by law to take such an ¿cknowledgement, nevertheless he did sign and seal the deed and his signature was witnessed, and on the same day that this was done he handed it to the appellants in the presence of a family gathering and declared that it was his intention to give these nine leasehold ⁶¹⁷ properties to them. This, they contend, constitutes a delivery of said properties, and all dominion and control over the properties, by the grantor, was relinquished, and title to the same became vested in the appellants. This argument is made notwithstanding that the conveyance was purely voluntary, for the appellants state in their amended bill that the conveyance was “an immediate gratuitous, voluntary and unconditional transfer of all interest” of the grantor in said properties, “with no power of revocation by the donor or a revesting of any interest in said properties to the donor.” There is no allegation in the amended bill of complaint that the appellants took possession of these properties under the pretended deed, or that they ever spent any money on the same for improvements or repairs; but, on the contrary, they pray for an accounting by the administratrix of the rents and profits which she received as such from said properties. This presupposes that the administratrix was and now is in possession of these leasehold properties.

This is not a case where property was given by a donor and the donee was induced thereby to enter and take possession thereof and spend large sums of money for repairs and improvements thereon; neither does this case involve a gift such as money in bank, or movable personal property, where the law does not require a deed to be “executed, acknowledged and recorded”. Cases which involve gifts of deposits in bank, or movable personal property, are not applicable to a case like this. This case pertains to immovable chattels real, and relates to an interest in real estate. The appellants cite the case of Cox v. Hill et al., 6 Md. 274 .

This