Legal Opinion
Sternlicht v. Sternlicht
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided June 20, 2005No. 46 WAP 2003PublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Justice BAER.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the Pennsylvania Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (PUTMA), 20 Pa.C.S. § 5301-5321, superseded the common law requirement that donative intent must exist in order to have a valid, completed inter vivos gift pursuant to PUTMA. For the reasons that follow, we hold that PUTMA superseded the common law requirement that donative intent must exist in order to have a valid inter vivos gift under PUTMA, therefore rendering the intent of the donor irrelevant to the validity of a gift made pursuant thereto. We, therefore, affirm the order of…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Commonwealth v. Gilmour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- O'ROURKE v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
- Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- Commonwealth v. CoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
- Commonwealth v. McClinticSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Krebs v. United Refining Co. of PennsylvaniaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Koken v. Reliance InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Commonwealth v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.