Sample Research Memo

To: Stuart Gutwein

From: Cara Putman

Subject: Question regarding gifts to XXXX for particular purpose that has failed.

Date: February 28, 2012

XXXX had engaged in a fundraising campaign for the purposes of improving the physical facilities of the XXXXX. While some funds were raised, insufficient funds were obtained to proceed with renovations. As a result, the board is contemplating a sale of the XXXXX. With that potential sale, the question has arisen as to whether or not the funds must be returned.

The answer seems to be it depends.

In a 1933 case, the Indiana Court of Appeals seems to have spoken directly to this question. The Indianapolis Bible Institute had initiated a building fund and a donor wanted her money back after the promised building didn’t occur. In that case the Court of Appeals stated very clearly: When funds are solicited, donated, and received for a certain definite purpose the donee of such funds has no right to apply the same to any other purpose. When the object or purpose for which the contributions were made fails, a resulting trust will arise for the benefit of the donors, or their heirs. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the complaint. Richards v. Wilson (1916), 185 Ind. 335, 112 N.E. 780; The Rector etc. v. Crawford (1871), 43 N.Y. 476; First Church of Christ Scientist v. Schreck (1911), 127 N.Y.S. 174, 70 Misc. 645. The case that cites this one focuses on the abandonment of purpose.

The other two cases that came up repeatedly that were on point are summarized below. Richards v. Wilson can be distinguished because in that case the gifts were of real property rather than cash. In that case the court found that the gift was inalienable.

The one thought I had was whether the donors signed any type of contract that provided that the gifts were essentially inalienable and could not be revoked.

Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen, 201 Ind. 482 (1930)

[pic]In the making of an implied trust,...