In the USA, may parents prevent their children from receiving gifts or acquiring owned property? This a follow-up question to In the USA, do parents have the right to control their children&#39;s possessions?, The answer to the other question appears to establish that (in general, or at least in some states or by common law) minor children can legally own property, though interestingly, this may not include money or items the children earn through their own labor or efforts—it is primarily gifts that they can own, and those generally would only be special gifts, not normal household maintenance items given to them such as clothes or shoes. Parents also have some level of control over their children spending their own money (not the topic of discussion here). My question is: given that once minor children receive a special gift it is theirs and the parents cannot take it, can parents legally prevent their minor children from receiving gifts in the first place? Let's say Grandma wants to give $10,000 to Junior. Could the parents say “No, Mom. Either give the money to us and we will administer it, or Junior can’t accept the gift at all.”? This is not taking what Junior owns, it's preventing him from owning it in the first place. If such prevention can be legally done beforehand, then consider further if the gift has already been accomplished. Perhaps Grandma has already placed one hundred crisp 100-dollar bills into Junior's hands (or, say she deposits money into his custodial bank account before the parents learn of it). He runs to Mom and displays the cash/balance slip saying, &quot;look what Grandma gave me!&quot; Has the gift been irrevocably given at that point, or can the parents require it to be returned or set conditions on the gift at that point, given this is happening the moment they learn of the gift and immediately after the giving? If they cannot prevent the ownership against the child's wishes at this point, what if the parents convince the child to give the money back or give the money to them (perhaps operating under a mistaken belief about what is legal, knowingly or unknowingly communicating falsehoods about the situation to their child)? Could the child or the gift-giver later claim that the parents stole the money because the child didn't understand his rights at the time? It seems like if the law considers a child competent to receive and own gifted property, the child is competent to also give away such property, and if a child could legally refuse Grandma's gift in the first place (even if foolishly) then he can also give away Grandma's gift after its receipt (even if foolishly). Focusing more closely on the quoted cases in the original question, one part may be relevant: in HOBLYN vs. JOHNSON, 2002 as recorded at law.justia.co (emphasis mine): &quot;As a general rule any property acquired by the child in any way except by its own labor or services belongs to the child, and not to the parent.&quot; [46 C. C. 1314]. . . . It furthermore goes without saying that a parent cannot deprive a child of its property except pursuant to law (31 C. J. 1011), and the fact that in this instance the father had the property in question assessed as his property could not affect the title of the children. In Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen (Mass.) 497, it was said: &quot;In consideration of the duty which the law imposes on a father to furnish adequate support to his child during infancy, the services of the child during that period are due to the father, and, if they are rendered to a third person, the right of the father to recover the value thereof is clear and indisputable. But this is the extent of the father's right. He has no title to the property of the child, nor is the capacity or right of the latter to take property or receive money by grant, gift or otherwise, except as a compensation for services, in any degree qualified or limited during minority. Whatever therefore an infant acquires which does not come to him as a compensation for services rendered, belongs absolutely to him, and his father cannot interpose any claim to it, either as against the child, or as against third persons who claim title or possession from or under the infant.&quot; Rephrasing this more directly, &quot;the right of the child to receive property by gift is not limited or qualified in any degree during minority.&quot; This would seem to suggest that parents may not interfere with gift giving to their children, however it is not clear. Does &quot;the right to take property or receive money is not limited&quot; assert that children must be allowed to receive any gift at all? Or is this only recognizing that, once given (a process that the parents might legally prevent, but did not), the parents cannot then take the gift after its receipt? Imagine the parents believe all dancing is wrong, and a friend of the child gives him a book on how to breakdance. May the parents legally demand the return of the book to the friend?
Probably A valid gift requires: Intention of donor to give the gift to the donee (donative intent) Delivery of gift to donee. Acceptance of gift by donee. As the legal guardian, parent could refuse acceptance on behalf of the child. Again, in the same capacity, they could limit or restrict use of the gift providing while the child remained a child.
If two parties have a contract, where one party is required to do X in exchange for the other party doing Y, then the terms specified in that contract would determine what happens. You would have to see exactly what it says, especially if the other party has the option to not give you money. A contract might say "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X; if A elects not to make payment, notice must be given 60 days before X". Failing to give timely notice is thus breech of contract. However if the clause only says "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X", then there is no requirement for advance notice. And this assumes that there is a contract whereby both parties have some obligation to the other. A gift, on the other hand, carries no obligations on the giving party. There may be some social code to the effect that they should have told you by now, but failing to give advance notice is at most rude and certainly not legally actionable.
Two people exchanging goods or services on a commercial basis and then pretending it was two gifts is tax evasion. It's not a gift. It's a commercial sale that you lie about by 'putting' a different 'label' on it. Sometimes two people will give mutual gifts, e.g. if you come to my wedding: I give you dinner, you give me some kitchenware. Yet there's nothing commercial about it. So that's not income for either party. However, if you're talking about two businesses making sales to each other, that is very much income, regardless of what you badge it.
I believe non-probate assets are specific gifts you call out -- in the Will -- that are designated for specific beneficiaries. Little Jimmy gets the old pair of lucky Yankees socks, Little Suzie gets the old, decrepit, half-eaten turkey sandwich that Babe Ruth once took a bite out of, etc. This is incorrect. Every transfer arising from a will is a probate asset, because probate is the formal legal process of determining if there was a will, and if so, which will applies, and then distributing the assets of the person who died in accordance with that will (or with the determination that there was no will). I'm guessing things like: 401ks/Roth IRAs Life Insurance policies Savings accounts Stock market investments Houses, land &amp; real property ...could all be probate assets if one does't specifically gift them to a Beneficiary? A 401k/Roth IRA with a beneficiary designation (other than the owner's estate), a life insurance policy with a beneficiary designation (other than the owner's estate), a savings account or stock account or investment with a joint owner or a pay on death beneficiary (other than the owner's estate), or real property with a transfer on death beneficiary or a joint ownership with right of survivorship is a non-probate asset. Any of those assets if there is no beneficiary designation, if there is no pay on death beneficiary, if there is no joint owner with right of survivorship, if it is not owner through a trust, and if there is a beneficiary designation that names the owner's estate, is a probate asset. The General Rule Anything subject to allocation and distribution in a will, or by intestate succession is a probate asset. Specifically devised property in a will is a probate asset. A non-probate assets is something transferred pursuant to a beneficiary designation, pay on death provision, joint ownership with right of survivorship, tenancy by entireties, or provision in a trust existing prior to the death of the decedent. These assets are not dealt with through the probate court process. However, if a will purports to specifically devise property that has a beneficiary designation or pay on death beneficiary or is owned by a trust or is in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, then the non-probate transfer prevails over the inconsistent language in the will. See also: Examples of Non-Probate Transfers Used in Estate Planning The following are examples of non-probate transfers commonly used in estate planning: Passing property to beneficiaries through a living trust. Leaving funds to a beneficiary named on a pay on death account or transfer on death account. Leaving funds to a beneficiary named on a life insurance policy. Leaving funds to a beneficiary named on an IRA, 401k or other retirement account. See financial planning. Holding title to property as joint tenants or tenancy by the entirety. Leaving motor vehicles to a transfer on death beneficiary. Gifting assets to heirs during your lifetime so the assets do not pass as part of your estate. Executing and recording a transfer on death deed naming a beneficiary to inherit your real estate. (Source) The American Bar Association devotes a full chapter length treatment to discussing the difference. It begins: Upon death, a decedent’s estate includes both probate and nonprobate assets. Probate assets are those that pass to persons identified in a will (see Chapter 3 for a discussion of wills), whereas nonprobate assets pass outside an estate’s administration. Examples of traditional nonprobate assets include qualified and nonqualified retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and life insurance policies. However, nonprobate assets can also include certain checking and savings accounts, certificates of deposit, investments, and even real property, but only if a beneficiary is designated and state law allows for such an asset to pass outside of an estate’s administration. Nonprobate assets are frequently referred to as “will substitutes.”
It depends on the jurisdiction (naturally). The answer for Washington is "No, not exactly". RCW 9a.83.030 states that "The attorney general or county prosecuting attorney may file a civil action for the forfeiture of proceeds". The police can seize real property, but must file a lis pendens regarding the property. The bar that has to be cleared for forfeiture is "probable cause". The Institute for Justice has an extensive analysis of civil forfeiture, especially with a state by state summary (they aren't positionally neutral on forfeiture, but they are legally respectable). Then after a inevitable judgment (90 days if the judgment is sooner), the property is transferred. Notice is to be "served within fifteen days after the seizure on the owner of the property seized and the person in charge thereof and any person who has a known right or interest therein, including a community property interest", so they would notify Bob (assuming they know Bob is the real owner). Or, if Bob learns of the seizure that "If a person notifies the seizing law enforcement agency in writing of the person's claim of ownership or right to possession of property within forty-five days of the seizure in the case of personal property and ninety days in the case of real property, the person or persons shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard as to the claim or right". It is possible that Bob's property could be taken (nothing prevents it), especially if Bob's hands are unclean.
No, the minor cannot be in violation either being on the property of residence or the sidewalk in front of that property. Montgomery County Curfew Law: Section 1-2 (Offenses): (a) A minor commits an offense if he remains in any public place or on the premises of any establishment within the unincorporated areas of the county during curfew hours. Section 1-3 (Defenses): (a) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 1-2 that the minor was: (1) Accompanied by the minor’s parent or guardian; (2) On an errand at the direction of the minor’s parent or guardian, without any detour or stop; (3) In a motor vehicle involved in interstate travel; (4) Engaged in an employment activity, or going to or returning home from an employment &gt;activity, without any detour or stop; (5) Involved in an emergency; (6) On the sidewalk abutting the minor’s residence or abutting the residence of a next-door neighbor if the neighbor did not complain to the police department about the minor’s presence; (7) Attending an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by Montgomery County, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor, or going to or returning home from, without any detour or stop, an official school, religious, or other recreational activity supervised by adults and sponsored by Montgomery County, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor; (8) Exercising First Amendment rights protected by the United States Constitution, such &gt;as the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and the right of assembly; and (9) Married, had been married, or had disabilities of minority removed in accordance with Chapter 31 of the Texas Family Code. (b) It is a defense to prosecution under Section 1-2 (c) that the owner, operator, or employee of an establishment promptly notified the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, or the appropriate Constable’s office, that a minor was present on the premises of the establishment during curfew hours and refused to leave. Your property is not public, so you cannot be in offense of this ordinance being on your private property. You also cannot be in violation being on your sidewalk (or a neighbors sidewalk if that neighbor has not called police on the offender).
In general As Dale M explained, if you give the money to someone who is not obviously authorized by the business to accept money and sell stuff in exchange, you have not entered into a valid sales contract. That means you are taking things without permission. Therefore the shop could sue you for any damage this causes (maybe you took something the shop did not want to sell, or the person at the information desk was not an employee and ran away with the money). However, whether this constitutes a crime such as theft will depend on jurisdictions. Germany In Germany, for example, it would probably not, because by definition a theft requires "intention to take posession in violation of the law" (StGB §242). You could argue that you did not intend to violate the law, because you paid the required amount, and only gave the money to the wrong person by mistake. Of course, I cannot guarantee that will convince the judge... England and Wales Similarly, the law in England and Wales defines "theft" in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968: A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; [...] Furthermore, section 2 says: A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest— [...] (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or [...] So, similar to the situation in Germany, you could argue in court that you intended to buy the item legally, and believed that the shop would be okay with that.
Normal ways of owning a house don't allow this In common law jurisdictions (so, be careful if you set this in Louisiana which has mixed civil/common law) the normal ways that residential property is owned would either require the agreement of all parties to sell or one party could sell their share but they could not force the other party to do so. However, there are lots of ways that property can be abnormally owned. First, there is the transitional period where the property is legally owned by the Estate of the deceased for the benefit of the beneficiaries and administered by the executor of the will or the administrator if there is no will. If the house was bequeathed specifically to the beneficiaries then the executor must arrange for the legal transfer. However, if there is no will or the will just bequeaths assets without identifying them then the executor/administrator has discretion on whether to transfer the house or to sell it and distribute the proceeds. If this is shortly after the death and the sister was the administrator, she could decide to sell. The house could be owned by a company. If so, the director(s) would be able to dispose of it. The director(s) are appointed by the shareholders and if the sister had more than 50% of the shares, well. This is not a particularly common way of owning residential property because it has tax disadvantages but it is a common ownership method for industrial or commercial property: many companies own the land where they do business. Perhaps the house is a small part of a large factory complex? The property could be inside a trust with the brother and sister as beneficiaries but the sister as trustee. Trusts can be discretionary (i.e. the trustee decides who gets what) or unit trusts (like having shares in a company - you get it in proportion to your holding). The latter is the way publicly traded property trusts work. While the trustee has to operate in line with the trust deed and for the benefit of all the beneficiaries, the sister may, reasonably or unreasonably, decide that selling the house is in those interests.