Gruen v. Gruen Facts: The (P) father gave him a painting that he wanted to retain until he died. When he died his wife (D) would not give the painting to the (P). The father had three letters sent to the (P) indicating the gift Letter 1: gave the painting to the son but he was only allowed to have it after he died Letter 2: Told the son that he was revoking the part in the letter about “after he died” for tax purposes but still intended for him to have hit and still intended to keep it until he died Letter 3: Gave the painting to the son. Issue: can a inter vivos gift exist where someone has a life estate on it and has never had actual possession on it? Rule: A party may make a inter vivos gift by giving part of the interest away. Donative Intent: (D) contends that even if the present gift was intended, his reservation of a lifetime interest in the painting defeated it. (P) asserts that it was not about transferring the whole title but part of it. The dad made a gift of partial interest in the painting. He intended to transfer some present interest Delivery: (D) claims there was no delivery (P) the delivery must be necessary perfect to the nature of the gift and eth surrounding circumstances Acceptance: It would be silly to give the gift and give it back to his Dad. The letters show an instrument of giving or a symbolic gift that substitute for the actual gift.