Prince v. Burger

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellee, a man over eighty years of age, probably could be properly designated as the appellant’s “star boarder”— at least for a short period of time. During April of 1959, he entered her home as a roomer and boarder for a monthly stipend of $100. He paid her this monthly sum promptly (sometimes giving her a little extra), and in December turned over to her $1,500 in cash.

About six months ³⁵³ thereafter, his demand for repayment of the money was refused, and this suit followed. The case was tried in the Superior Court of Baltimore City by a judge, sitting without a jury, who found for the plaintiff in the amount of $1,500. After entry of judgment upon the finding, this appeal followed. The appellee claims the money was a loan; while the appellant contends that it was a gift.

She argues that the mere transferal of money from one person to another raises no presumption of a loan, and, since “nothing was said at the time of the transfer of the funds regarding a loan,” it constituted a valid gift, which the court had no right to revoke, simply because the appellee changed his mind. It is true that, ordinarily, there is no presumption that money paid by one person to another was transferred as a loan, the presumption generally being that the money paid was in satisfaction of a debt. Bright v. Kelley, 168 Md. 107 , 176 A. 874 ; Nay v. Curley, 21 N. E. 698 (N. Y.) ; 58 C.J.S., Money Lent, § 7 b. And there can be no doubt that a valid gift, voluntarily made and consistent with law, will not be set aside merely because the donor subsequently changes his mind, regrets the transaction, and desires to recall his bounty.

Simpson v. League, 110 Md. 286 , 72 A. 1109 ; Reil v. Wempe, 145 Md. 448 , 125 A. 738 ; Young v. Murray, 159 Md. 556 , 152 A. 111 ; 38 C.J.S., Gifts, § 40. Cf. Jones v. Selvaggi, 216 Md. 1 , 139 A. 2d 246 . But this argument of the appellant completely overlooks, and is directly contrary to, the appellee’s evidence that was produced at the trial.

The appellee testified that he had not known the appellant before he went to board with her; that he was not related to her; that in December she asked him if he would “help her out”; that “she asked for