3 22 12 To 5 4 12 0204 Emails To and From Keepsmilenjn@Gmail - Com Nichols Eastman

Print Close
Re: My property
From: Zach Coughlin,Esq. (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 5/04/12 7:15 AM
To: J eff Nichols (keepsmilenjn@gmail.com)
You l i e. You t ol d me I coul dn' t come on t he pr oper t y and t hen put t he uhauhl behi nd your
gat e. You st ol e myg possessi ons and r enegged on our r esol ut i on agr eement at eml pt i ng t o coer ce
a consent t o your t hef t . I f i l ed a mot i on t o show cause and a pol i ce r epor t so i f you want t o
be f ool i sh and di spose of my pr oper t y, you wi l l be sued.
J ef f Ni chol s <keepsmi l enj n@gmai l . com> wr ot e:
>Zach l have done al l I was supose t o. You showed up wi t h a car no hel p t o
>move your st uf f . We assi st ed you unt i l you became r ude. The uhaul was
>avai l abl e t o you unt i l 8 ocl ock. Today Fr i day your pr oper t y wi l l be r emoved
>f r om t he si t e and al l expenses wi l l be payed bef or e get t i ng i t back. Text
>me i f you want t o get anyt hi ng out of t he uhaul bef or e i t i s moved! Thank
>you si ncer el y J ef f
>On May 3, 2012 5: 19 PM, " Zach Coughl i n, Esq. " <zachcoughl i n@hot mai l . com>
>wr ot e:
>
>> I need t o go on your pr oper t y t o r et r i eve my bel ongi ngs and have unt i l t he
>> t i me al l ot t ed under t he cour t or der . . . yet youh j ust t hr eat ened me and
>> i nsi st ed I l eave t he pr emi ses, i n addi t i opn t o f ai l i ng t o pl ace t he key
>> wher e you i ndi cat ed i t woul d be ear l i er and conspi r i ng wi t h your empl oyee
>> J ames who l i ves okn si t e t o al l ow hi mt o st eal my pt oper t y, i ncl udi ng t hat
>> whi j ch was l ocked i n t he f i f t h wheel . I need access t o t he pr oper t y and
>> t he i t ems you pl aced beyond your f ence you have a dut y t o st or e f or 30 days
>> f r om get t i ng an evi ct i opn or der . . and you have yet t o ev en ser ve an
>> evi ct i on not i ce so, you sghoul d puht t he couch et c back i n t he of f f i ce
Re: My property
Sent: Fri 5/04/12 6:50 AM
You l i e. You t ol d me I coul dn' t come on t he pr oper t y and t hen put t he uhauhl behi nd your
gat e. You st ol e myg possessi ons and r enegged on our r esol ut i on agr eement at eml pt i ng t o coer ce
a consent t o your t hef t . I f i l ed a mot i on t o show cause and a pol i ce r epor t so i f you want t o
be f ool i sh and di spose of my pr oper t y, you wi l l be sued.
>Zach l have done al l I was supose t o. You showed up wi t h a car no hel p t o
>move your st uf f . We assi st ed you unt i l you became r ude. The uhaul was
>avai l abl e t o you unt i l 8 ocl ock. Today Fr i day your pr oper t y wi l l be r emoved
>f r om t he si t e and al l expenses wi l l be payed bef or e get t i ng i t back. Text
>me i f you want t o get anyt hi ng out of t he uhaul bef or e i t i s moved! Thank
>you si ncer el y J ef f
>On May 3, 2012 5: 19 PM, " Zach Coughl i n, Esq. " <zachcoughl i n@hot mai l . com>
>wr ot e:
>
>> I need t o go on your pr oper t y t o r et r i eve my bel ongi ngs and have unt i l t he
>> t i me al l ot t ed under t he cour t or der . . . yet youh j ust t hr eat ened me and
>> i nsi st ed I l eave t he pr emi ses, i n addi t i opn t o f ai l i ng t o pl ace t he key
>> wher e you i ndi cat ed i t woul d be ear l i er and conspi r i ng wi t h your empl oyee
>> J ames who l i ves okn si t e t o al l ow hi mt o st eal my pt oper t y, i ncl udi ng t hat
>> whi j ch was l ocked i n t he f i f t h wheel . I need access t o t he pr oper t y and

>> t he i t ems you pl aced beyond your f ence you have a dut y t o st or e f or 30 days
>> f r om get t i ng an evi ct i opn or der . . and you have yet t o ev en ser ve an
>> evi ct i on not i ce so, you sghoul d puht t he couch et c back i n t he of f f i ce
Re: My property
From: Jeff Nichols (keepsmilenjn@gmail.com) This sender is in your safe list.
Sent: Fri 5/04/12 6:21 AM
To: Zach Coughlin,Esq. (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Zach l have done all I was supose to. You showed up with a car no help to move your stuff. We assisted you until
you became rude. The uhaul was available to you until 8 oclock. Today Friday your property will be removed from
the site and all expenses will be payed before getting it back. Text me if you want to get anything out of the uhaul
before it is moved! Thank you sincerely J eff
On May 3, 2012 5:19 PM, "Zach Coughlin,Esq." <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
I need to go on your property to retrieve my belongings and have until the time allotted under the
court order...yet youh just threatened me and insisted I leave the premises, in additiopn to failing to
place the key where you indicated it would be earlier and conspiring with your employee J ames who
lives okn site to allow him to steal my ptoperty, including that whijch was locked in the fifth wheel.
I need access to the property and the items you placed beyond your fence you have a duty to store
for 30 days from getting an evictiopn order..and you have yet to ev en serve an eviction notice so,
you sghould puht the couch et c back in the offfice
My property
Sent: Thu 5/03/12 5:18 PM
I need t o go on your pr oper t y t o r et r i eve my bel ongi ngs and have unt i l t he t i me al l ot t ed
under t he cour t or der . . . yet youh j ust t hr eat ened me and i nsi st ed I l eave t he pr emi ses, i n
addi t i opn t o f ai l i ng t o pl ace t he key wher e you i ndi cat ed i t woul d be ear l i er and conspi r i ng
wi t h your empl oyee J ames who l i ves okn si t e t o al l ow hi mt o st eal my pt oper t y, i ncl udi ng t hat
whi j ch was l ocked i n t he f i f t h wheel . I need access t o t he pr oper t y and t he i t ems you pl aced
beyond your f ence you have a dut y t o st or e f or 30 days f r om get t i ng an evi ct i opn or der . . and
you have yet t o ev en ser ve an evi ct i on not i ce so, you sghoul d puht t he couch et c back i n
t he of f f i ce
please leave a key for both the back of the uhaul and the uhaul itself
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Thu 5/03/12 8:24 AM
To: keepsmilenjn@gmail.com

thank you
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 3961, RENO, NV, 89505, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473
COURT TOMMORROW
Sent: Sun 4/29/12 5:49 PM
To: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Zach not sure what your thinking .This is wrong I believe the J udge will realize how this whole thing has been a
bunch of lies.
RE: property at 3900 north virgina
Sent: Tue 4/10/12 5:58 PM
J eff,
Lets work this out, okay. I am trying to figure something out...is the stuff still in
the old uhaul? can you just hold it there for awhile with a lock or something? do
you need the uhaul, etc.?
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:48:52 -0700
Subject: Re: property at 3900 north virgina
From: keepsmilenjn@gmail.com
DEAR ZACH I WILL BE HAPPY TO DELIVER ALL YOUR BELONGING FREE OF CHARGE IF YOU
TELL ME WHERE & WHEN IT MUST BE BY 4/13/12 IF NOT THEY WELL BE STORED ADDING
MORE EXPENSES SO FAR IT HAS COST ME IN EXCESS OF $ 250.00. CALL ME AT 745-1730
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Nichols,

Are my belongings still in that old Uhaul? What are the storage fees, what
exacdtly would need to be paid. Lets just try to work this out without a
bunch of court stuff hassling etc. I don't really want anymore drama,
etc. I do want my stuff. Please explain where and when I am able to
get my property and what the conditions are, etc., etc. It make not look
like it to you, J eff, but some of that stuff is very valuable, in some sense or
other. Is Mr. Allison your attorney on this matter? Please let me know
if you have an attorney as it would be appropriate for me to communicate
with them. I filed a complaint in this matter. Have you received any
notice of any hearing?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:36 -0700
Subject: property at 3900 north virgina
DEAR ZACK COUGHLIN I PAYED A PERSON TO MOVE & STORE YOUR BELONGING
HE WELL HOLD TELL 4/13/12 GIVE THEM TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE AFTER THAT
DATE IT WELL COST YOU THAT & STORAGE FEES WHICH WELL BE PAID FOR BEFORE
GETTING STUFF BACK .
Re: property at 3900 north virgina
Sent: Tue 4/10/12 6:48 AM
DEAR ZACH I WILL BE HAPPY TO DELIVER ALL YOUR BELONGING FREE OF CHARGE IF YOU
TELL ME WHERE & WHEN IT MUST BE BY 4/13/12 IF NOT THEY WELL BE STORED ADDING
MORE EXPENSES SO FAR IT HAS COST ME IN EXCESS OF $ 250.00. CALL ME AT 745-1730
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Nichols,
Are my belongings still in that old Uhaul? What are the storage fees, what

exacdtly would need to be paid. Lets just try to work this out without a
bunch of court stuff hassling etc. I don't really want anymore drama,
etc. I do want my stuff. Please explain where and when I am able to
get my property and what the conditions are, etc., etc. It make not look
like it to you, J eff, but some of that stuff is very valuable, in some sense or
other. Is Mr. Allison your attorney on this matter? Please let me know
if you have an attorney as it would be appropriate for me to communicate
with them. I filed a complaint in this matter. Have you received any
notice of any hearing?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:36 -0700
DEAR ZACK COUGHLIN I PAYED A PERSON TO MOVE & STORE YOUR BELONGING
HE WELL HOLD TELL 4/13/12 GIVE THEM TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE AFTER THAT
DATE IT WELL COST YOU THAT & STORAGE FEES WHICH WELL BE PAID FOR BEFORE
GETTING STUFF BACK .
RE: property at 3900 north virgina
Sent: Tue 4/10/12 5:14 AM
Mr. Nichols,
Are my belongings still in that old Uhaul? What are the storage fees, what exacdtly
would need to be paid. Lets just try to work this out without a bunch of court stuff
hassling etc. I don't really want anymore drama, etc. I do want my stuff. Please
explain where and when I am able to get my property and what the conditions are, etc.,
etc. It make not look like it to you, J eff, but some of that stuff is very valuable, in
some sense or other. Is Mr. Allison your attorney on this matter? Please let me
know if you have an attorney as it would be appropriate for me to communicate with

them. I filed a complaint in this matter. Have you received any notice of any
hearing?
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:59:36 -0700
DEAR ZACK COUGHLIN I PAYED A PERSON TO MOVE & STORE YOUR BELONGING HE WELL
HOLD TELL 4/13/12 GIVE THEM TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE AFTER THAT DATE IT WELL COST YOU
THAT & STORAGE FEES WHICH WELL BE PAID FOR BEFORE GETTING STUFF BACK .
Re: property at 3900 north virgina
Sent: Mon 4/09/12 9:34 PM
You wi l l be sued.
T- Mobi l e. Amer i ca' s Fi r st Nat i onwi de 4G Net wor k
>DEAR ZACK COUGHLI N I PAYED A PERSON TO MOVE & STORE YOUR BELONGI NG HE WELL
>HOLD TELL 4/ 13/ 12 GI VE THEM TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE AFTER THAT DATE I T WELL
>COST YOU THAT & STORAGE FEES WHI CH WELL BE PAI D FOR BEFORE GETTI NG STUFF
>BACK .
property at 3900 north virgina
Sent: Mon 4/09/12 2:59 PM
DEAR ZACK COUGHLIN I PAYED A PERSON TO MOVE & STORE YOUR BELONGING HE WELL
HOLD TELL 4/13/12 GIVE THEM TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE AFTER THAT DATE IT WELL COST YOU
THAT & STORAGE FEES WHICH WELL BE PAID FOR BEFORE GETTING STUFF BACK .
FW: Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal
Lockout

Sent: Wed 4/04/12 2:55 PM
To: rjcweb@washoecourts.us; keepsmilenjn@gmail.com; kstancil@washoecounty.us
1 attachment
18_TenantsAffidavit_DeclarationSupportMotionExpeditedRelief vs. J eff Nichols.pdf (487.8 KB)
Zach Coughlin, Esq.
NV Bar No: 9473
Fax 949 667 7402
Tel: 775 338 8118
April 4, 2012
Re: Zach Coughlin v J eff Nichols, and Cobblestone Masonary Verified Complaint for Illegal Lockout
Dear RJ C,
I am writing to inquire about the scheduling of a hearing, I filed this complaint last week.
Sincerely,
/s/ Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
Subject: Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal Lockout
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 11:10:42 -0700
Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal Lockout
Also faxed to:
J eff Nichols, Owner Cobblestone Masonry
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
email:keepsmilenjn@gmail.com
RE: Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal
Lockout

Sent: Wed 4/04/12 10:49 AM
Mr. Nichols,
Have you removed any lock affixed to the fifth wheel wherein my belongings are
stored?
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 07:27:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal Lockout
Your story is the lie you seem enjoy pushing your legal training to terrorise people I`am sure the J udge well see
the lies. oNNCE AGAIN YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MOVING YOUR BELONGING OFF
THIS PROPERTY.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Nichols,
You know what you said to me. Regardless of all your threats to intimidate your
employees into lying for you, you know what you said to me. Be careful about lying in
court, Mr. Nichols.

Sincerely,

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:01:20 -0700
DEAR MR COUGHLIN YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE UNLAWFULLY DUMPED
YOUR STUFF IT IS AN EYE SORE . OTHER TENANTS HAVE COMPLAINED TO ME. I
HAVE PITCHERS OF YOUR MESS IF YOU DON'T MOVE IT ASAP THEN IT WELL BE
MOVED. IF U PAY FOR THE EXPENSES OR DO IT YOURSELF THEN MAKE IT QUICK.WE
HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WELL TESTIFY THAT YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO

THIS.ALONG WITH YOUR TRACT RECORD I WISH YOU LUCK IN COURT.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nichols,
Do you understand that I have filed a Complaint against you in a
court of law and that you no longer may unilaterally play judge and
jury?
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949
667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar No: 9473
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:25:04 -0700
zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff
off this property which you were never allowed to bring any way we have many people
who will testify to this all your stuff is in a pile we have pitchers to reflect your lack of
care for any ones buisness .I will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12. sincerly J eff
Nichols
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506, tel: 775 338
8118, fax: 949 667 7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com Nevada Bar
No: 9473

Re: Please find attached Tenants Affidavit for Complaint for Illegal
Lockout
Sent: Wed 4/04/12 7:27 AM
Your story is the lie you seem enjoy pushing your legal training to terrorise people I`am sure the J udge well see
the lies. oNNCE AGAIN YOU REFUSE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MOVING YOUR BELONGING OFF
THIS PROPERTY.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:49 PM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Nichols,
You know what you said to me. Regardless of all your threats to intimidate your
employees into lying for you, you know what you said to me. Be careful about lying
in court, Mr. Nichols.

Sincerely,

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:01:20 -0700
DEAR MR COUGHLIN YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE UNLAWFULLY DUMPED
YOUR STUFF IT IS AN EYE SORE . OTHER TENANTS HAVE COMPLAINED TO ME. I
HAVE PITCHERS OF YOUR MESS IF YOU DON'T MOVE IT ASAP THEN IT WELL BE
MOVED. IF U PAY FOR THE EXPENSES OR DO IT YOURSELF THEN MAKE IT QUICK.WE
HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WELL TESTIFY THAT YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO
THIS.ALONG WITH YOUR TRACT RECORD I WISH YOU LUCK IN COURT.
Dear Mr. Nichols,
Do you understand that I have filed a Complaint against you in a
court of law and that you no longer may unilaterally play judge
and jury?

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:25:04 -0700
zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff
off this property which you were never allowed to bring any way we have many people
who will testify to this all your stuff is in a pile we have pitchers to reflect your lack of
care for any ones buisness .I will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12. sincerly J eff
Nichols
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
No: 9473
Lockout
Sent: Tue 4/03/12 11:49 PM

Mr. Nichols,
You know what you said to me. Regardless of all your threats to intimidate your employees into
lying for you, you know what you said to me. Be careful about lying in court, Mr. Nichols.

Sincerely,

Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:01:20 -0700
DEAR MR COUGHLIN YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE UNLAWFULLY DUMPED YOUR
STUFF IT IS AN EYE SORE . OTHER TENANTS HAVE COMPLAINED TO ME. I HAVE PITCHERS OF
YOUR MESS IF YOU DON'T MOVE IT ASAP THEN IT WELL BE MOVED. IF U PAY FOR THE
EXPENSES OR DO IT YOURSELF THEN MAKE IT QUICK.WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WELL
TESTIFY THAT YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS.ALONG WITH YOUR TRACT RECORD I WISH YOU
LUCK IN COURT.
Dear Mr. Nichols,
Do you understand that I have filed a Complaint against you in a court of law
and that you no longer may unilaterally play judge and jury?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:25:04 -0700
zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff off this
property which you were never allowed to bring any way we have many people who will testify to
this all your stuff is in a pile we have pitchers to reflect your lack of care for any ones buisness .I
will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12. sincerly J eff Nichols
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:

Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
Lockout
From: Jeff Nichols (keepsmilenjn@gmail.com)
Sent: Tue 4/03/12 5:01 PM
DEAR MR COUGHLIN YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT YOU HAVE UNLAWFULLY DUMPED YOUR
STUFF IT IS AN EYE SORE . OTHER TENANTS HAVE COMPLAINED TO ME. I HAVE PITCHERS OF
YOUR MESS IF YOU DON'T MOVE IT ASAP THEN IT WELL BE MOVED. IF U PAY FOR THE
EXPENSES OR DO IT YOURSELF THEN MAKE IT QUICK.WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WELL
TESTIFY THAT YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THIS.ALONG WITH YOUR TRACT RECORD I WISH YOU
LUCK IN COURT.
Dear Mr. Nichols,
Do you understand that I have filed a Complaint against you in a court of law
and that you no longer may unilaterally play judge and jury?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:25:04 -0700

zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff off this
property which you were never allowed to bring any way we have many people who will testify to
this all your stuff is in a pile we have pitchers to reflect your lack of care for any ones buisness .I
will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12. sincerly J eff Nichols
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
Lockout
Sent: Mon 4/02/12 10:16 AM
Dear Mr. Nichols,
Do you understand that I have filed a Complaint against you in a court of law and that
you no longer may unilaterally play judge and jury?
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:25:04 -0700

zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff off this property which you
were never allowed to bring any way we have many people who will testify to this all your stuff is in a pile we
have pitchers to reflect your lack of care for any ones buisness .I will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12.
sincerly J eff Nichols
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
Lockout
Sent: Mon 4/02/12 8:25 AM
zach once again you amaze me with your lies .you have been asked to move your stuff off this property which you
were never allowed to bring any way we have many people who will testify to this all your stuff is in a pile we
have pitchers to reflect your lack of care for any ones buisness .I will have this stuff moved by 04/07/12.
sincerly J eff Nichols
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529

Sent: Fri 3/30/12 11:10 AM
1 attachment
18_TenantsAffidavit_DeclarationSupportMotionExpeditedRelief vs. J eff Nichols.pdf (487.8 KB)
Also faxed to:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL LOCKOUT ATTACHED
Sent: Fri 3/30/12 10:37 AM
1 attachment
17_TenantsMotionExpeditedReliefIllegalLockout against J eff Nichols.pdf (413.3 KB)
Also faxed to you at:
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529

Re: my stuff
Sent: Fri 3/30/12 7:58 AM
ZACH this fabricated story that you are attempting to sell is a lie you where never allowed to put your stuff on my
property you have damage my rv jeopardized the business remove all things withen 24 hrs as ask before call asap
745-1730
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Zach Coughlin <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Nichols and Mr. Eastman,

Please indicate which of you has authority to allow me to be on the property that Mr.
Nichols alleges he has a leasehold to and that Mr. Eastman alleges he sublets the officer
theron from Mr. Nichols. The two of you alternatively disclaim authority to do things
like allow me to be there, one says its his office, the other says its his, etc., etc. Mr.
Eastman punched me in the face, breaking my camera and causing scratches to my nose
and upper lip. He apparently did so as an agent of Mr. Nichols.

Regardless, there is highly confidential and valuable property in and near the fifth wheel
that Mr. Nichols allowed me the use of and access to before apparently (though I request
clarification in writing) attempting to alter that agreement after the fact.

Please get together and figure out your positions and who has the authority to do what
and let me know. Otherwise, of course, I feel unsure of whether I am allowed on the
property..

Sincerely,


Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700
Subject: Re: FW: my stuff
From: peteeastman@gmail.com
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff until you are here then you can supervise
the moving of your stuff. Please remember you put it there and it will be raining this week. You need

to get off your butt and do something. Start being responsible for yourself.
On Mar 29, 2012 1:34 PM, "Zach Coughlin" <zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:
I can't imagine what you think I need to apologize for. Please let me know your
intentions with respect to addressing the damage to my camera and other
damage. You punched me in the face, causing my camera's lcd screen to crack and
leaving marks on my nose and upper lip. Please provide a copy of any retainer
agreement or fee agreement you feel attaches to my appearing as attorney of record in
your case. I wish to withdraw as attorney of record, however, I wish to avoid any
prejudice to your case in doing so and intend to fully comply with all rules speakign to
my responsibility to you in that regard.

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me know if you have any of it and when
and where I can retrieve it.

Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are precluding me from the
property and or the fifth wheel. Please do not damage my property. It
has een photographed and inventoried extensively and I will pursue all legal
remedies for any damage done thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you
are subjecting me to an illegal lockout. Please let me know by 5pm.

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin

RE: Mail
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 7:46 PM
To: peteeastman@gmail.com; keepsmilenjn@gmail.com
do you have the fender stratocaster guitar? please confirm whether you have the items I itemized.

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:58:48 -0700
Subject: RE: Mail
Its your stuff. Take it all. Why would i not let you have your stuff?
what items do you have that you will allow me to retrieve?

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:49:11 -0700
Subject: RE: Mail
You can come to the house.
I would like to get my mail tonight sometime, the stratocaster, the box under
the pool table, the duplex brother printer, and any other of my belongings.

I would like to meet at the Qdoba by the exit. Can someone meet me
there at about 8pm? Thanks,



Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:38:41 -0700
Subject: Mail
I just went to the post office and have some mail for you. You need to contact me to
make arrangements to get it or let me know where to forward.
RE: my stuff
From: Peter Eastman (peteeastman@gmail.com) This sender is in your safe list.
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 3:38 PM
J eff stated he wants your illegally placed property of the his site by tomorrow. If you want my help to move it
you need to let me know asap.
On Mar 29, 2012 3:07 PM, "Peter Eastman" <peteeastman@gmail.com> wrote:
Today is the last day i can help you as i work tomorrow. I need to know your schedule today!
Zach pull your head out. Your not getting anything in writing you have an email.
I need a response from Mr. Nichols in writing...Mr. Nichols makes
conflicting statements as to whether you have any authority, whether you
are a tenant or not, whether you pay rent, etc. etc.
No: 9473
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:29:08 -0700
Subject: RE: my stuff
J eff and i have already discussed this. As long as your nice your allowed
to move your stuff when one of us are here. It is entirely up to you and

your demeanor. Let me know when you are available.
On Mar 29, 2012 2:10 PM, "Zach Coughlin"
<zachcoughlin@hotmail.com> wrote:

Please indicate which of you has authority to allow
me to be on the property that Mr. Nichols alleges he
has a leasehold to and that Mr. Eastman alleges he
sublets the officer theron from Mr. Nichols. The
two of you alternatively disclaim authority to do
things like allow me to be there, one says its his
office, the other says its his, etc., etc. Mr. Eastman
punched me in the face, breaking my camera and
causing scratches to my nose and upper lip. He
apparently did so as an agent of Mr. Nichols.

Regardless, there is highly confidential and valuable
property in and near the fifth wheel that Mr. Nichols
allowed me the use of and access to before apparently
(though I request clarification in writing) attempting
to alter that agreement after the fact.

Please get together and figure out your positions and
who has the authority to do what and let me know.
Otherwise, of course, I feel unsure of whether I am
allowed on the property..

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506,
tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff
until you are here then you can supervise the moving of
your stuff. Please remember you put it there and it will be
raining this week. You need to get off your butt and do

something. Start being responsible for yourself.
I can't imagine what you think I need to
apologize for. Please let me know your
intentions with respect to addressing the
damage to my camera and other
damage. You punched me in the face,
causing my camera's lcd screen to crack and
leaving marks on my nose and upper lip.
Please provide a copy of any retainer
agreement or fee agreement you feel attaches
to my appearing as attorney of record in your
case. I wish to withdraw as attorney of
record, however, I wish to avoid any prejudice
to your case in doing so and intend to fully
comply with all rules speakign to my
responsibility to you in that regard.

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me
know if you have any of it and when and
where I can retrieve it.

Sincerely,

Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO,
NV, 89506, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667
7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473

Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or
not you are precluding me from the
property and or the fifth wheel. Please
do not damage my property. It has een
photographed and inventoried extensively

and I will pursue all legal remedies for
any damage done thereto. I need to
know, in writing, if you are subjecting
me to an illegal lockout. Please let me
know by 5pm.

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
Zach Coughlin, Esq., PO BOX 60952, RENO,
NV, 89506, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667
7402; ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
Nevada Bar No: 9473
RE: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 3:07 PM
Today is the last day i can help you as i work tomorrow. I need to know your schedule today!
I need a response from Mr. Nichols in writing...Mr. Nichols makes conflicting
statements as to whether you have any authority, whether you are a tenant or not,
whether you pay rent, etc. etc.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:29:08 -0700

J eff and i have already discussed this. As long as your nice your allowed to move your
stuff when one of us are here. It is entirely up to you and your demeanor. Let me
know when you are available.

Please indicate which of you has authority to allow me to be on
the property that Mr. Nichols alleges he has a leasehold to and
that Mr. Eastman alleges he sublets the officer theron from Mr.
Nichols. The two of you alternatively disclaim authority to do
things like allow me to be there, one says its his office, the other
says its his, etc., etc. Mr. Eastman punched me in the face,
breaking my camera and causing scratches to my nose and upper
lip. He apparently did so as an agent of Mr. Nichols.

Regardless, there is highly confidential and valuable property in
and near the fifth wheel that Mr. Nichols allowed me the use of
and access to before apparently (though I request clarification in
writing) attempting to alter that agreement after the fact.

Please get together and figure out your positions and who has the
authority to do what and let me know. Otherwise, of course, I
feel unsure of whether I am allowed on the property..

Sincerely,

No: 9473

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff until you are
here then you can supervise the moving of your stuff. Please remember
you put it there and it will be raining this week. You need to get off your
butt and do something. Start being responsible for yourself.

I can't imagine what you think I need to apologize for.
Please let me know your intentions with respect to
addressing the damage to my camera and other
damage. You punched me in the face, causing my
camera's lcd screen to crack and leaving marks on my nose
and upper lip. Please provide a copy of any retainer
agreement or fee agreement you feel attaches to my
appearing as attorney of record in your case. I wish to
withdraw as attorney of record, however, I wish to avoid
any prejudice to your case in doing so and intend to fully
comply with all rules speakign to my responsibility to you in
that regard.

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me know if you
have any of it and when and where I can retrieve it.

Sincerely,

tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;

Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are
precluding me from the property and or the fifth
wheel. Please do not damage my property. It has
een photographed and inventoried extensively and I
will pursue all legal remedies for any damage done
thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you are
subjecting me to an illegal lockout. Please let me
know by 5pm.

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin

tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;
RE: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:46 PM
I need a response from Mr. Nichols in writing...Mr. Nichols makes conflicting statements as to
whether you have any authority, whether you are a tenant or not, whether you pay rent, etc. etc.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:29:08 -0700
J eff and i have already discussed this. As long as your nice your allowed to move your stuff when
one of us are here. It is entirely up to you and your demeanor. Let me know when you are
available.

Please indicate which of you has authority to allow me to be on the property
that Mr. Nichols alleges he has a leasehold to and that Mr. Eastman alleges
he sublets the officer theron from Mr. Nichols. The two of you
alternatively disclaim authority to do things like allow me to be there, one
says its his office, the other says its his, etc., etc. Mr. Eastman punched me
in the face, breaking my camera and causing scratches to my nose and upper
lip. He apparently did so as an agent of Mr. Nichols.

Regardless, there is highly confidential and valuable property in and near the

fifth wheel that Mr. Nichols allowed me the use of and access to before
apparently (though I request clarification in writing) attempting to alter that
agreement after the fact.

Please get together and figure out your positions and who has the authority to
do what and let me know. Otherwise, of course, I feel unsure of whether I
am allowed on the property..

Sincerely,


Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff until you are here then you
can supervise the moving of your stuff. Please remember you put it there and it will be
raining this week. You need to get off your butt and do something. Start being
responsible for yourself.
I can't imagine what you think I need to apologize for. Please let me
know your intentions with respect to addressing the damage to
my camera and other damage. You punched me in the face, causing
my camera's lcd screen to crack and leaving marks on my nose and upper
lip. Please provide a copy of any retainer agreement or fee agreement
you feel attaches to my appearing as attorney of record in your case.
I wish to withdraw as attorney of record, however, I wish to avoid any
prejudice to your case in doing so and intend to fully comply with all
rules speakign to my responsibility to you in that regard.

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me know if you have any of it
and when and where I can retrieve it.

Sincerely,

No: 9473

Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are precluding
me from the property and or the fifth wheel. Please do not
damage my property. It has een photographed and inventoried
extensively and I will pursue all legal remedies for any damage
done thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you are subjecting
me to an illegal lockout. Please let me know by 5pm.

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
No: 9473
RE: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:40 PM
To: peteeastman@gmail.com; pameastman5@gmail.com
I need a response from Mr. Nichols in writing...Mr. Nichols makes conflicting statements as to whether you have
any authority, whether you are a tenant or not, whether you pay rent, etc. etc.

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:29:08 -0700
J eff and i have already discussed this. As long as your nice your allowed to move your stuff when one of us are
here. It is entirely up to you and your demeanor. Let me know when you are available.



property..

Sincerely,


Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700



Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,


Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
RE: my stuff

Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:29 PM
J eff and i have already discussed this. As long as your nice your allowed to move your stuff when one of us are
here. It is entirely up to you and your demeanor. Let me know when you are available.



property..

Sincerely,


Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700



Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,


Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
RE: my stuff

Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:09 PM
To: peteeastman@gmail.com; keepsmilenjn@gmail.com

Please indicate which of you has authority to allow me to be on the property that Mr. Nichols alleges
he has a leasehold to and that Mr. Eastman alleges he sublets the officer theron from Mr. Nichols.
The two of you alternatively disclaim authority to do things like allow me to be there, one says its his
office, the other says its his, etc., etc. Mr. Eastman punched me in the face, breaking my camera
and causing scratches to my nose and upper lip. He apparently did so as an agent of Mr. Nichols.

Regardless, there is highly confidential and valuable property in and near the fifth wheel that Mr.
Nichols allowed me the use of and access to before apparently (though I request clarification in
writing) attempting to alter that agreement after the fact.

Please get together and figure out your positions and who has the authority to do what and let me
know. Otherwise, of course, I feel unsure of whether I am allowed on the property..

Sincerely,


Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:05:55 -0700
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff until you are here then you can supervise the moving
of your stuff. Please remember you put it there and it will be raining this week. You need to get off your butt and
do something. Start being responsible for yourself.
I can't imagine what you think I need to apologize for. Please let me know your intentions with
respect to addressing the damage to my camera and other damage. You punched me in the
face, causing my camera's lcd screen to crack and leaving marks on my nose and upper lip.
Please provide a copy of any retainer agreement or fee agreement you feel attaches to my appearing
as attorney of record in your case. I wish to withdraw as attorney of record, however, I wish to
avoid any prejudice to your case in doing so and intend to fully comply with all rules speakign to my

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me know if you have any of it and when and where I can
retrieve it.

Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are precluding me from the property
and or the fifth wheel. Please do not damage my property. It has een photographed
and inventoried extensively and I will pursue all legal remedies for any damage done
thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you are subjecting me to an illegal lockout.
Please let me know by 5pm.

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
Re: FW: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 2:05 PM
If you want to play that game. We will not move your stuff until you are here then you can supervise the moving
of your stuff. Please remember you put it there and it will be raining this week. You need to get off your butt and
do something. Start being responsible for yourself.


retrieve it.

Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,


Thank You,

Zach Coughlin

Re: FW: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 1:46 PM
You need to apologize to everyone who has tried to help you. Quit being an ass and do something to help
yourself.

retrieve it.

Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,


Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
FW: my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 1:33 PM
To: peteeastman@gmail.com; pameastman5@gmail.com; pameastman@hotmail.com
I can't imagine what you think I need to apologize for. Please let me know your intentions with respect to
addressing the damage to my camera and other damage. You punched me in the face, causing my camera's
lcd screen to crack and leaving marks on my nose and upper lip. Please provide a copy of any retainer
agreement or fee agreement you feel attaches to my appearing as attorney of record in your case. I wish to
withdraw as attorney of record, however, I wish to avoid any prejudice to your case in doing so and intend to fully
comply with all rules speakign to my responsibility to you in that regard.

In the meantime, I need my mail, please let me know if you have any of it and when and where I can retrieve it.

Sincerely,


Subject: my stuff
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:30:01 -0700
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are precluding me from the property and or the fifth
wheel. Please do not damage my property. It has een photographed and inventoried extensively
and I will pursue all legal remedies for any damage done thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you


Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
my stuff
Sent: Thu 3/29/12 1:30 PM
Mr. Nichols,

I am unsure of your status on whether or not you are precluding me from the property and or the fifth
wheel. Please do not damage my property. It has een photographed and inventoried extensively
and I will pursue all legal remedies for any damage done thereto. I need to know, in writing, if you

Thank You,

Zach Coughlin
"5 page" Legal Memorandum attached on hypothetical English
Professor gift/loan
Sent: Fri 3/23/12 9:39 PM
13 attachments
3 23 12 opinion memorandum re promissory note to J eff Nichols pdf.pdf (112.7 KB) , 3 23 12 opinion
memorandum re promissory note to J eff Nichols.odt (41.2 KB) , 3 23 12 opinion memorandum re
promissory note to J eff Nichols.doc (115.5 KB) , k8 k. Resignation, suspension, or removal. clerks of
court.pdf (50.2 KB) , alr debt gift.pdf (405.8 KB) , Construction and effect of will provision releasing
or forgiving debt due testator.pdf (314.6 KB) , Debt, or Part of Debt, Owed by Donee to d Donor.pdf

(1003.1 KB) , Debt, or Part of Debt, Owed by Donee to Donor citing references.pdf (15.9 KB) , Debt,
or Part of Debt, Owed by Donee to Donor various alr's on point.pdf (405.8 KB) , Debt, or Part of
Debt, Owed by Donee to Donor.pdf (10.8 KB) , Execution of release, receipt, or satisfaction
citing.pdf (8.4 KB) , Execution of release, receipt, or satisfaction.pdf (14.3 KB) , Gift of Debt to
Debtor.pdf (891.2 KB)

Dear Mr. Nichols,

Here is the Legal Memorandum you contracted with me to provide you. Please note, its scope and effect are
very limited pursuant to our fee agreement. You have not paid me anything near what would be necessary to
provide you with legal advice for which I would incur any malpractice liability of any import. This is not "legal
advice", but rather consulting to you pursuant to a hypothetical you posed to me. If indeed this relates to an
actual case, I am available for future legal services, however. I am attaching this Legal Memorandum (related to
the hypothetical) in several formats for your convenience (try getting the big firms to do that) and you have been
provided volumes of materials pertinent to this hypothetical, which entailed substantial research on my part.
Please send me that hypothetical email we looked over together related to this scenario wherein an English
Professor makes a loan/gift to a long time friend and any other relevant materials.

Zach Coughlin, Esq.
PO BOX 60952, RENO, NV, 89506,
tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;
PO BOX 10605
Reno, NV 89510
Tel: 775 323 3626
Fax: 775 345 7529
March 23, 2012,
Dear Mr. Nichols,

In action by representative of decedent's estate to recover amounts loaned by decedent to defendant during her
lifetime, testimony as to decedent's statements in various conversations forgiving defendant's indebtedness were
sufficient to prove valid gift. Guardian State Bank and Trust Co. v. J acobson, 220 Neb. 235, 369 N.W.2d 80
(1985).
Deed provision that any amount owing on debt secured thereby at time of death of creditor should be deemed gift
was good, not as gift or as testamentary disposition, but as part of contractual obligation agreed upon by parties
when loan was negotiated. Walston v. Twiford, 248 N.C. 691, 105 S.E.2d 62 (1958).
Where father, in response to son's letter asking what he should do about paying back loan, wrote son note stating
"Keep it No Return," no clearer expression of intention to forgive loan could be expected from one of father's
learning than that contained in note and therefore note was sufficient in and of itself to constitute valid gift of loan
to son. In re Larson's Estate, 71 Wash. 2d 349, 428 P.2d 558 (1967).
Decedent made inter vivos gift to his son of note executed by son to evidence loan from decedent, and note was
therefore not part of decedent's estate, where, though note was in decedent's safe deposit box at his death, decedent
had informed his wife and a trusted employee of his intent to make gift of note to his son, and, prior to his death,
decedent had instructed the employee who, together with another trusted employee, had access to decedent's safety
deposit box to cancel note but died before his wishes could be carried out; since these employees had acted for son
as well as father in preparing transaction in question and in other matters, decedent's instructions made them
agents for both to cancel note, and decedent's death did not terminate such agency; employees were also thereby
constituted trustees on behalf of son to cancel note, and there was effective delivery of trust res to them by
decedent's renunciation of control over the note, though they did not then come into its physical possession. In re
Field's Estate, 99 Ill. App. 2d 235, 240 N.E.2d 765 (1st Dist. 1968). See McLaughlin v. Knox, 224 So. 2d 491 (La.
Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969),
See Burns v. Beeny, 427 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968), 2. Deceased creditor's statements and actions
antedating alleged gift were relevant and material on issue of donative intent, and along with other evidence in
case, including evidence as to creditor's insisting upon all of his money, his reliance upon his attorney, his being
indignant about debtors' failure to pay, and evidence as to debtors' signing papers for new bank loan to be applied
against indebtedness on day after day they claimed creditor made gift of debt, supported trial court's finding that
no gift had been made. Arretche v. Griego, 77 N.M. 364, 423 P.2d 407 (1967).
Sullivan v Shea (1916) 32 Cal App 369, 162 P 925, was an action by the administratrix of the estate of J ames J .
Sullivan, deceased, against Timothy Shea upon a promissory note for money borrowed by Shea from Sullivan in
his lifetime. The complaint alleged that the note had been lost. The defendant admitted the execution of the note
and based his defense upon the theory that it had been purposely destroyed by the deceased with the intention of
making a gift of the debt to the defendant. It appeared that the loan had been made without taking therefor a note,
receipt, or other evidence of the transaction at the time, and that the note was not executed until about a year later,
when the decedent was about to depart for a vist to Ireland; that Shea's wife was a niece of Sullivan; that the
relationship between Sullivan and the Sheas was close and intimate, and that upon his return from Ireland he made
his home with them for three or four months; that before leaving for Ireland, in a conversation concerning the loan,
Sullivan told Mrs. Shea that he did not care whether he ever got any of the money back, that she and her husband
were the best friends he had and were more entitled to the money than any of his other relatives; that on another
occasion Mrs. Shea informed Sullivan that the money was in the bank, and offered to get it and repay the loan, but
Sullivan refused to accept it and told her that she and her husband should keep the money and use it; and that on
still another occasion, after Sullivan had left the Shea home and engaged in business, Shea called on him for the
purpose of paying the note and interest, at which time Sullivan at first refused to accept any money on account of
the note, but, upon Shea's insistence, accepted the money offered on account of interest but refused any portion of
the principal, and moreover told Shea not to bother about the note. A few months thereafter Sullivan died, and the
plaintiff was appointed administratrix of his estate. She testified that she made a thorough search among the
decedent's papers and effects, but did not find any trace of the note. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff,
and its finding and judgment were sustained on appeal. The court said: "In this case, the note having been shown
to exist, we have on the part of the plaintiff the presumption that the obligation still exists until overcome by proof
of payment, cancelation, or some stronger counter presumption. On the other hand, there was testimony to the
effect that the decedent had, on several different occasions, indicated that he intended to make a gift of the
indebtedness to the defendant; and it was a question of fact to be passed on by the trial court, after consideration of
this evidence coupled with the inference to be drawn from the circumstance that the note could not be found
among the effects of the decedent, whether it had been destroyed by the alleged donor with the intent of forgiving
the indebtedness. The burden of proof was upon the defendant to establish the gift by clear and convincing
evidence, which, in the opinion of the trial court, as indicated by the judgment rendered by it, he failed to do; and
we cannot say upon a review of the evidence that the court's conclusion was contrary thereto."
The following is the 5 page Legal Memorandum I agreed to prepare for you in exchange for that remuneration
indicated in our fee agreement. You described to me a hypothetical scenario wherein someone loaned you
approximately $125,000 via an unsecured loan or promissory note. You indicated you had had a very long
friendship with this man, whom was 85 years old at the time the loan was made. The man passed away a month
later. His son is now contacting you seeking to enforce the loan. You indicated the man and his son had a very
trying relationship and you do not believe the man intended for you to be required to pay back the loan, pursuant
to the 15 year duration found in its terms, for that period occurring after the death of the man, the one making the
loan to you. You indicated that you have numerous emails describing this scenario, very informal in tone, at least
one addressing you as J effrey Son, etc., etc. and that, at least verbally, this man indicated to you that this
loan was just between the two of us, thereby indicating that the man did not wish for his estate or heirs to
seek to collect from you an unpaid portion of the loan upon the death of the man making the loan/gift to you.
The strongest analysis for these issues will be found here:
-Validity and effect of agreement that debt or legal obligation contemporaneously or subsequently incurred shall
be canceled by death of creditor or obligee, 11 A.L.R.3d 1427
-Construction and effect of will provision releasing or forgiving debt due testator, 76 A.L.R.2d 1020
-Trial Strategy Gift rather than loan, 39 Am. J ur. Proof of Facts 2d 733:
-Gift of debt, or part of debt, owed by donee to donor, 38 Am. J ur. 2d, Gifts 4448:
IS THE TRANSFER A LOAN? G. LOCAL LAW MAY GOVERN THE LOAN DETERMINATION-AT
LEAST IN PART-WHETHER A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE OBLICATION EXISTS ON THE PART OF THE
TRANSFEREE TO PAY BACK THE TRANSFEROR
Milenbach v. C.I.R., 318 F.3d 924 (C.A.9, 2003): [5] [6] Whether a transaction is a loan for federal income tax
purposes is ultimately a question of federal law. See Helvering v. Stuart, 317 U.S. 154, 162, 63 S.Ct. 140, 87 L.Ed.
154 (1942) ("Once rights are obtained by local law, whatever they may be called, these rights are subject to the
federal definition of taxability."). Initially, however, state law determines the rights and obligations of the parties
to a transaction. See id. at 161-62, 63 S.Ct. 140. But once an obligation is created by local law, it is subject to the
federal definition of taxability. Id. Here, the dispositive question is whether the hypothetical gift/loan from the
English Professor, under either, perhaps (depending upon factual particulars that I will need more information on
from you) Nevada or California law, does subject you to a non-illusory and enforceable obligation to repay the
estate of the man making you this gift/loan (the English Professor). If the you (or perhaps your business,
depending upon facts which you have not provided) were subject to an "existing, unconditional, and legally
enforceable obligation" to repay the the English Professor, or perhaps, his estate, the monies provided you are
properly treated as loans for federal income tax purposes. Noguchi, 992 F.2d at 227.
As I indicated to you, such legal encyclopedia articles may be over 100 pages long, and yet not contain one
citation to any authority from the State of Nevada. Such is practicing law in Nevada. California law may be
implicated in the hypothetical you describe, as may a race to the courthouse to establish a choice of forum
(particulary if litigating this issue in California would be unduly burdensome to you).
Statement or memorandum as to gift or payment
[Cumulative Supplement]
The courts have had frequent occasion to consider in this connection the effect of a statement
or memorandum by a creditor, other than a technical release or receipt[18] or an indorsement
on a written obligation,[19] with respect to a gift or the payment of the debt.
It may be stated as a general rule that a mere statement, declaration, or memorandum by
the creditor to the effect that he gives, has given,[20] or intends to give[1] the debt to the debtor,
that he does not desire or intend that the debt shall be paid or collected,[2] or that the
amount remaining unpaid at his death is to be forgiven,[3] is ineffectual for such purpose.
This conclusion, as hereinafter shown,[4] has usually resulted from application of the rule requiring
delivery to the debtor of a written obligation,[5] or of a release or receipt.[6] A conclusion
adverse to the efficacy of the statement or memorandum relied upon as constituting a
gift has also been based, inter alia, on the finding or view that a donative intent was not sufficiently
indicated thereby,[7] and on the theory that a debt constituting a lien or charge on real
property cannot be released or discharged by parol.[8] In a few instances, however, a contrary
conclusion has been reached as to the effect of such a statement or memorandum,[9] or of
such a statement under or in combination with particular circumstances.[10]
In Quirk v Quirk (1907, CC Pa) 155 F 199, in which it was held that a mere oral statement
by the creditor to the debtor that he would give him the debt was not sufficient for the purpose,
the court said: "It is well settled that, while a creditor may make a present of the debt to
his debtor, yet nothing less than a delivery of the note or a receipt as the case may be is sufficient
to support the gift."
In Collins v Maude (1904) 144 Cal 289, 77 P 945, it was held that a gift of a debt evidenced
by a note secured by a mortgage was not effectuated by the following writing signed by
the mortgagee: "I am leaving for St. Louis, and before I start I write this to certify that it is my
wish that Mrs. Maude [mortgagor] shall not be asked for the money she borrowed from me or
the interest on it. She and I have a perfect understanding about my business." The court observed
that, by such writing, the mortgagee "did no more than to say that, as she was about to
go to St. Louis, she did not wish, in her absence that Mrs. Maude should be asked for the
money she had borrowed, or the interest."
In Ross v Walker (1902) 44 Fla 704, 32 So 934, a mere declaration by the creditor of his
intention not to collect a debt evidenced by due bills, and of his intention to destroy such due
bills, where such intention was not carried into effect, was held not to constitute a gift but a
mere promise to make a gift in the future, which, being without consideration, was not enforceable.
Wilson v Keller (1881) 9 Ill App 347, was an action on a book account for medical services
rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. It was claimed by the latter that the plaintiff
had made her a gift of the account, or had released his claim, and she introduced witnesses
who testified to statements made by the plaintiff after the indebtedness accrued to the effect
that he would not charge or did not intend to charge her anything, which statements were
denied by the plaintiff. A verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant were reversed on appeal
on the ground that the alleged statements of the defendant, if true, were not sufficient to
show a gift of the debt. The court said: "In the case before us, as the book account was against
appellee herself, the delivery of a receipted copy of it, or of an acquittance, or possibly of a
copy of the account not receipted, if the intention to transfer was clearly shown, would be a
delivery suited to the subject-matter of the gift; and probably an erasure of the charges from
the account book would be regarded as an equivalent act. But here, no one of these things was
done, nor was any act tantamount thereto done; and the intent to give, if it ever existed, was
never executed. If the intention not to charge had existed at the very time the operation was
performed and the prior services rendered, a different question would be presented."
In Gallagher v Donahy (1902) 65 Kan 341, 69 P 330, the maker of the notes in question
relied upon the following statement in a letter written to him by the payee as constituting a
gift thereof: "J ohn, as for that $1500.00 you are owing me, you need not trouble yourself, as
all I expect or want you to pay is the interest on it When you write say nothing about me
making you a present of the $1500.00, for I do not want my wife to see it mentioned in your
letter, or do not tell anybody else that would tell my wife. I will send your notes after a
while." But it was held that such statement was insufficient for the purpose, in view of the
creditor's retention of the notes and his reservation of the right to collect interest thereon. The
court said: "Here there was no delivery of the notes, nor any relinquishment of control or
dominion over them. Instead of a transfer and surrender of the debt evidenced by the notes, its
continued existence was recognized by the expressed purpose to collect interest on it. If there
was no debt no interest would accrue. The letter relied on indicates a purpose on the part of
Donahy to make a gift of the notes to Gallagher at a future indefinite time, and that he intended
to consummate the gift by sending the notes to Gallagher. No time was fixed by him for
the sending of the notes, but he did declare that he would expect the continued payment of interest.
His retention of the dominion and control of the debt and notes, and his statement that
he would expect the continuance of payments of interest, does not evidence a purpose to make
a gift in praesenti. As was said in Roland v. Schrack, 29 Pa. 125, a transaction cannot be
changed from a loan to a gift by loose declarations of one that he has given money to another,
and especially where there is an absence of complete delivery, so essential to the validity of a
gift."
In Nelson v Cartmel (1837) 36 Ky (6 Dana) 8, it was held that the maker of a note was not
entitled to exoneration from the debt merely because the obligee, who was his father-in-law,
had during his last illness manifested an intention to cancel it and make him a present of the
amount. The court said: "Such unexecuted intention did not, of itself, discharge the obligation,
nor was it accompanied by such acts and circumstances as to have made it a donatio causa
mortis."
In Burge v Burge (1903) 25 Ky LR 979, 76 SW 873, it appeared that the payee of a note
made an indorsement thereon to the effect that it was not to draw interest. It further appeared
that he had stated that the note was not to be paid, and that during his last illness he had
caused a memorandum to that effect to be entered in a book. The court stated that it was perfectly
clear from the evidence that the payee never intended that the note should be paid, but
held that there was no gift thereof inter vivos, since there was no delivery of it to the debtor.
In Baldwin v Barber (1912) 151 Ky 168, 151 SW 686, Ann Cas 1915A 14, the question
was whether a debtor had been released from the payment of interest on a portion of her debt,
where it appeared that her creditor had written to his agent and nominated executor, in part as
follows: "You will therefore only collect from Lena Barber from this date interest on $4,000
of her note, the residue of said interest from this date I now remit to her." The court said: "The
paper applied only to future interest, and was revocable at any time. It never passed beyond
the donor's control; it was never delivered to Lena Barber, or to anyone for her. In our opinion,
the paper was not effective for any purpose, and the executors should have ignored it, by
collecting interest upon the note according to it terms."
Succession of Mathews (1935, La App) 158 So 233, was an action on a note executed to
the decedent, Mrs. Mathews, by the defendants, Mr. and Mrs. Miller. It appeared that prior to
the death of the decedent, she was a boarder in the Miller home, and that upon the occasion of
her departure for the hospital, about four days prior to her death, she handed the note to Mrs.
Miller, telling her to keep it and that in the event of her death she did not want them to have to
meet the obligation. On the back of the note there was a notation in the handwriting of and
signed by the decedent, reading: "In the event of my death debt will be forgiven." It was held
that the transaction did not constitute a gift of the debt, either inter vivos or causa mortis, or a
remission thereof, for the reasons stated in the following excerpts from the opinion: "The note
was not delivered to opponents in the sense that delivery connotes the remission of the debt.
The note was given in safekeeping to Mrs. Miller, and had decedent survived she had a perfect
right to demand the return of the note. She plainly intended the debt to be forgiven only in the
event of her death, and this is shown, not only by her language on the morning she left for the
hospital, as testified to by Mrs. Miller, but also by her own handwriting on the reverse side of
the note. The legal effect of the words 'in the event of my death debt will be forgiven,' written
and signed by decedent on the reverse side of the note, presents an interesting question. Had
this writing been dated by decedent, it would have been a perfect olographic will under article
1588 of the Civil Code. Lack of a date, however, is fatal to this form of will. It does not approach
any of the forms prescribed by the Civil Code for any of the other kinds of testaments
and, consequently, falls without the category of a donation mortis causa because Civil Code,
article 1570, provides that: 'No disposition mortis causa shall henceforth be made otherwise
than by last will or testament. Every other form is abrogated.' Likewise, the suspensive condition
'in the event of my death' removes it from the class of donations inter vivos which, under
Civil Code article 1468, are acts by which 'the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably,
of the thing given, in favor of the donee who accepts it,' and under article 1467 no one
can acquire or dispose of property gratuitously, unless by donations inter vivos or mortis
causa, and in the forms prescribed therefor. Had the decedent written the words, 'the debt is
hereby remitted,' there is no question but that the remission would have been valid; or had she
unequivocally delivered the note to Mrs. Miller or destroyed it, the effect would have been the
same. She did none of these things, however, and it is our opinion that the writing in this case
is an attempted disposition mortis causa and, for the reasons above set forth, is without legal
effect."
In Cardoza v Leveroni (1919) 233 Mass 310, 123 NE 672, it was held that there had been
no gift of a mortgage by the owner thereof to the mortgagor where the former told the latter
that he had paid enough and that she considered the mortgage paid, but the note and mortgage
remained in the possession of the agent of the mortgagee and were never delivered to the
mortgagor. The court observed that while the intention to make a gift of the debt was clear, it
was never carried into execution.
In Re Bliss' Estate (1936) 276 Mich 689, 268 NW 783, it was held that a statement in writing
by the payee of a note, to the effect that she wanted the maker to have it, which statement,
as well as the note, was retained in her possession until the time of her death, could not be
given effect as a gift of the debt, since there was no delivery to the donee, and also because
the attempted disposition of the note was testamentary in character.
In Henderson v Henderson (1855) 21 Mo 379, the facts that the creditor stated that he did
not intend to exact payment of a note and sent word to the debtor to come and get it were held
not sufficient to constitute a gift, there being no actual delivery of the note to the debtor.
In Schroeder v Ely (1955) 161 Neb 252, 73 NW2d 165, it appeared that on J anuary 1,
1951, the defendants, Harold and Faye Ely, husband and wife, were indebted to the plaintiff,
Helen M. Schroeder, for money theretofore advanced to them by her pursuant to a contract
between them, and that on that date the plaintiff turned over to Harold Ely an envelope containing
canceled checks evidencing a portion of the amount she had so advanced, on which
envelope she had written, "Paid in Full Happy New Year from Helen 1951." With respect to
the effect of this act, the court said: "It is clear from the evidence that appellee did not thereby
intend to cancel that amount of the loan which the Elys then owed her but rather for the purpose
of having him keep the checks for her and to show the Elys she would not press them for
payment. It is evident that Harold Ely so understood it and always intended to pay appellee
the amount thereof. At most it was a gift on condition that she have a home with them for life.
That, as we have already said, became impossible because of the conduct of Faye Ely."
In Irwin v J ohnson (1882) 36 NJ Eq 347, it was declared that a debt cannot be extinguished
by the mere statement by the creditor that he forgives it or that he does not intend to
enforce payment thereof. The court overruled the case of Leddel v Starr (1869) 20 NJ Eq 274,
in so far as it supported the doctrine of an equitable release or extinguishment of a debt by a
mere declaration by the creditor that he did not intend to enforce it.
In Brinckerhoff v Lawrence (1845, NY) 2 Sandf Ch 400, it appeared that the holder of certain
bonds executed and attached thereto an instrument reading as follows: "Whereas, I am de-
sirous of preventing any legal controversy after my death between the members of my family,
if in my power. And whereas, I hold the annexed bonds and evidences of debt against my son
George Brinckerhoff, I hereby direct the said bonds and evidences of debt to be canceled,
upon his or his legal representatives executing a good and sufficient discharge to the executors
of my husband's estate, and also good and sufficient discharges to each of his brothers and sisters,
or their heirs, of all demands whatever against them. And in case he should refuse so to
do, I direct these bonds and evidences of debt to be made a set-off against any such demands,
but they are never to be put in suit against him." There was never any actual delivery of this
instrument to the debtor, and after the death of the holder the administrator of her estate
brought an action for the recovery of a judgment on the bonds against the debtor. After this
action was commenced, the defendant debtor offered to the administrator to execute and deliver
such discharges as were expressed in the above-quoted instrument, which offer was declined,
and the debtor then instituted the present proceeding in equity against the administrator
and the beneficiaries of the estate of the decedent to compel the surrender and cancellation of
the bonds. It was held that the complainant was entitled to the relief prayed for, upon compliance
with the specified conditions, on the ground that the writing in question operated as a
gift, or at least, as a conditional gift, of the indebtedness, notwithstanding that there had been
no actual delivery thereof to the debtor. The court expressed the opinion that its conclusion
might have been reached on the theory of a presumption of delivery, observing that courts often
infer a delivery, and leave it to juries to presume one from circumstances, "when the instrument
comes from the possession of the party by whom it was signed, and where there is no
evidence whatever of his having parted with its custody when it was signed or subsequently."
The court did not base the decision wholly on this ground, however. It went further and held
that under the circumstances involved the delivery of the instrument, either actual or presumptive,
was not essential to its operation as a gift, saying: "Courts of justice ought never to
strain a point of law to relieve a case of hardship or to support a claim however meritorious;
yet I think that a court of equity should strive to uphold and and validate an instrument which
the party evidently designed to make effectual, and which was made, not merely upon the
good consideration of the complainant's demands against members of her family, but on the
high and holy consideration of settling existing family broils and avoiding them in future, if
the principles of law or the force of judicial decisions will sanction the decree. There are several
decisions, some of which are authoritative and others entitled to entire respect, which it
appears to me fully sustain the complainant's case upon the instrument in question. Without
relying upon the presumption of its delivery or formal execution, I will proceed to a statement
of those decisions." The court then cited some early English cases, and said further: "It will be
observed that there was no delivery of the gift, or of any writing by which the intention to
make the gift was manifested, in either of the cases last cited. And the securities discharged by
the gift remained in the possession of the donor until after his death." After some additional
citations, the opinion continues as follows: "These authorities support the claim made to have
these bonds delivered up, on complying with the prescribed condition. It is not necessary, or
perhaps possible, to make these cases to harmonize with some of those where the gifts were
not sustained. I will, however, suggest a distinction. The cases adverse to the validity of the
donation were those in which the donor has sought to transfer, or shown an intent to transfer,
property actually existing and tangible, or to effect a gift by his own promise or contract to
pay at a future time, as by making his own note, bond or the like. In the cases which I have
last cited and commented upon, the aim was to forgive a debt, to discharge an obligation
already due from the object of the donor's bounty. A debt may be forgiven and discharged in
effect by parol, as by means of a confession of payment, and it is never required that it shall
be evidenced by so formal and authentic an act or instrument as a donation of property, or the
transfer of a thing in action." Although this decision does not appear to have been expressly
overruled, it is obviously in conflict with later decisions in New York as well as in other jurisdictions to the effect
that there must be such delivery of the subject of the gift as to remove
it entirely from the control of the would-be donor.
In Cohen v Cohen (1919) 107 Misc 635, 177 NYS 180, the court said: "It seems to be beyond
argument that no merely oral expression of an intention to give an unevidenced debt can
effectuate the intending donor's purpose."
In Re Chamberlin's Estate (1943) 289 NY 456, 46 NE2d 883, 145 ALR 1314, the debt in
question consisted of hotes executed by the maker to his mother for borrowed money. In the
present proceeding for the settlement of the mother's estate, it was held that a gift of the notes
by her to the maker was not established by evidence (1) that she had stated to other persons
that she did not want him to pay the notes, and (2) that she had signed and placed in her safe a
memorandum to her attorneys requesting them to destroy the notes before anything was done
toward settling her estate.
In Re Mearkle's Estate (1937) 129 Pa Super 93, 194 A 756, it appeared that Elizabeth A.
Mearkle delivered to a neighbor, Gail B. Hamilton, who later became Mrs. Sinnott, an envelope
on which was written the following by Mrs. Mearkle: "Property of Elizabeth A. Mearkle,
5533 Angora Terrace. In case of death of Elizabeth A. Mearkle this envelope is to be given to
my daughter Mabel D. Palmer. Should Mabel D. Palmer be deceased at the time of my death,
this is to be given to my grandson Frank H. McCallum. Elizabeth A. Mearkle." After the death
of Mrs. Mearkle the envelope was delivered by Mrs. Sinnott to Mabel D. Palmer, and upon
being opened, was found to contain two notes of Mabel D. Palmer and her husband payable to
Mrs. Mearkle. It was held that the transaction did not constitute a valid gift inter vivos to Mrs.
Palmer of the amount due on the notes in question, for the reasons, first, that the intention to
make such a gift was not sufficiently indicated by the indorsement on the envelope, and
secondly, that the delivery of the envelope to Mrs. Sinnott was not sufficient to place the notes
beyond the control of Mrs. Mearkle during her lifetime.
In Randall v Peckham (1877) 11 RI 600, it was held that the following writing, executed
and delivered to the debtor, Stephen O. Randall, by the creditor in his lifetime, did not operate
as a gift causa mortis: "This is to certify that is is agreed between myself and Olive G. Pettis
that, if she receives after my death a part of my estate, she, the said Pettis, does agree to cancel
the mortgages on the estates of B. M. Hubbard and Stephen O. Randall, and present them
with their notes to said Hubbard and said Randall, and make the amount of Hubbard's present
equal to that given Randall." The court, after observing that to make a valid donatio causa
mortis of a chose in action by the delivery of some document relating to it, the document must
be essential to its recovery, as for instance, a bond and mortgage, or a receipt for money
loaned, said that the writing in question was not of that character.
In Peterson v Weiner (1934, Tex Civ App) 71 SW2d 544, error ref, it appeared that the
holder of a note, upon receiving payment of an instalment of principal and interest due thereon,
executed a receipt therefor to which was appended the following statement: "In case of my
death, I want this debt canceled." It further appeared that the payee subsequently handed the
note to a third person with the request that he keep it in his possession, and that in the event of
his death he wanted to donate to the maker any unpaid balance thereon, but that he wanted to
collect the instalments maturing during his lifetime. It was held that this did not operate as a
gift for the reasons, first, that there was no delivery of the note to the maker, the third person
being an agent or a trustee for the payee, and secondly, that the attempted gift of the debt was
testamentary in character.
Tucker v Brown (1939) 199 Wash 320, 92 P2d 221, involved the construction and effect
of a document in the form of an affidavit executed by Sara E. Smith with respect to an advancement
of funds made by her to Reese B. Brown. After stating that such advances were
made as loans, the affiant stated that thereafter she decided to cancel and release all obligations
of Brown to repay such advances or to account to her in any manner for the same or any
earnings or profits therefrom, and to make said Brown a gift of the funds so advanced, and
that she had done so. The court held that this document was insufficient to establish a gift of
the funds in question, saying: "Even if the amount specified in this exhibit was a loan, the
document is not sufficient to cancel Mr. Brown's obligation to repay. It recites that Mrs.
Smith, in the year 1930, had 'decided' to cancel and release all obligation of Mr. Brown to repay,
but nowhere does the agreement use language which would operate to cancel the debt, if
there was one."
Clark v Sperry (1943) 125 W Va 718, 25 SE2d 870, involved the construction and effect
of a memorandum executed and delivered by the holder of certain notes to the maker thereof,
reading as follows: "For the sum of one dollar I accept your notes with the understanding
that if I should die before payment, said notes shall be considered paid in full." It was held
that this instrument, unaccompanied by the delivery of the notes to the debtor, did not constitute
a gift.
Aston v Pye (1788) 5 Ves J r 350, 31 Eng Reprint 628, was an action by the executors of
the estate of a decedent on a note executed to him by his nephew, Henry J ames Pye. It appeared
that the decedent, after the execution of his will, made the following entry: "Henry
J ames Pye pays no interest nor shall I ever take the principal unless greatly distressed." It was
held that this constituted a discharge of the debt.
In Eden v Smyth (1800) 5 Ves J r 341, 31 Eng Reprint 620, the debt in question was evidenced
by certain notes found in the possession of the payee at the time of his death. It appeared
that the decedent had made a bequest in favor of the debtor of a specified sum of
money, and also that in a letter to a third person he had stated that the debt represented by
such notes had been forgiven as a gift to the maker. It was held that this was sufficient to sustain
the maker's claim of a gift of such indebtedness.
Acknowledgment in mother's diary entry that father and perhaps mother intended to forgive
daughter's indebtedness to them, at time diary entry was made, was insufficient to establish
completed gift, which irrevocably discharged daughter's obligation. Gartin v. Taylor, 577
N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 1998).
Executed but undelivered statement found in deceased's safety deposit box to effect that if
maker of note and mortgage survived deceased, note and mortgage were released as paid, was
ineffectual to make gift of mortgage debt or as a will. Greene v. Cotton, 457 S.W.2d 493, 8
U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 201 (Ky. 1970) (citing annotation).
Evidence was insufficient to establish that holder of notes made gift of unpaid balance to
debtor, where, although there was evidence that payee considered making gift, that debtor
stopped making interest payments, and that payee failed to demand payments, there was no
evidence of present intent to make a gift, no writing executed, no mutilation or destruction of
notes, and no attempt, actually or constructively, to place notes in debtor's possession. J essup
v. Pursley, 554 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
In action by representative of decedent's estate to recover amounts loaned by decedent to
defendant during her lifetime, testimony as to decedent's statements in various conversations
forgiving defendant's indebtedness were sufficient to prove valid gift. Guardian State Bank
and Trust Co. v. J acobson, 220 Neb. 235, 369 N.W.2d 80 (1985).
Gift of debt could not be effectuated by parol; and facts of case did not permit application
of theory under which oral forgiveness of debt may be legally operative if subsequent action
of debtor, in reliance on creditor's statement, gives rise to promissory estoppel. In re Stein's
Estate, 50 Misc. 2d 627, 271 N.Y.S.2d 449 (Sur. Ct. 1966) (citing annotation).
Deed provision that any amount owing on debt secured thereby at time of death of creditor
should be deemed gift was good, not as gift or as testamentary disposition, but as part of contractual
obligation agreed upon by parties when loan was negotiated. Walston v. Twiford, 248
N.C. 691, 105 S.E.2d 62 (1958).
Where father, in response to son's letter asking what he should do about paying back loan,
wrote son note stating "Keep it No Return," no clearer expression of intention to forgive loan
could be expected from one of father's learning than that contained in note and therefore note
was sufficient in and of itself to constitute valid gift of loan to son. In re Larson's Estate, 71
Wash. 2d 349, 428 P.2d 558 (1967).
In Randall v Peckham (1877) 11 RI 600, it was held that the following writing, executed and delivered to the
debtor, Stephen O. Randall, by the creditor in his lifetime, did not operate as a gift causa mortis: "This is to certify
that is is agreed between myself and Olive G. Pettis that, if she receives after my death a part of my estate, she, the
said Pettis, does agree to cancel the mortgages on the estates of B. M. Hubbard and Stephen O. Randall, and
present them with their notes to said Hubbard and said Randall, and make the amount of Hubbard's present equal
to that given Randall." The court, after observing that to make a valid donatio causa mortis of a chose in action by
the delivery of some document relating to it, the document must be essential to its recovery, as for instance, a
bond and mortgage, or a receipt for money loaned, said that the writing in question was not of that character.
Tucker v Brown (1939) 199 Wash 320, 92 P2d 221, involved the construction and effect of a document in the
form of an affidavit executed by Sara E. Smith with respect to an advancement of funds made by her to Reese B.
Brown. After stating that such advances were made as loans, the affiant stated that thereafter she decided to cancel
and release all obligations of Brown to repay such advances or to account to her in any manner for the same or
any earnings or profits therefrom, and to make said Brown a gift of the funds so advanced, and that she had done
so. The court held that this document was insufficient to establish a gift of the funds in question, saying: "Even if
the amount specified in this exhibit was a loan, the document is not sufficient to cancel Mr. Brown's obligation to
repay. It recites that Mrs. Smith, in the year 1930, had 'decided' to cancel and release all obligation of Mr. Brown
to repay, but nowhere does the agreement use language which would operate to cancel the debt, if there was one."
Of particular import to this analysis is the ALR Gift of debt to debtor, 63 A.L.R.2d 259 (but, see also, 37 A.L.R.
1144 and 84 A.L.R. 383). It is generally agreed that a debt may be the subject of a gift to the debtor. As expressed
in some cases, a debt may be forgiven by way of a gift.[1] Assuming the legal capacity of the parties,[2] the prime
requisites of such a gift are (1) the existence of a donative intent on the part of the creditor,[3] (2) the execution of
such intention by some objective act which extin- guishes the debt or divests the creditor of his title thereto,[4] and
(3) the acceptance of the gift by the debtor.[5] The questions arising in this connection relate principally to the
determination of the existence of a donative intent,[6] and to the mode or means of carrying such intent into
execution.[ 7] The conclusion may depend, inter alia, upon the form or nature of the debt in question. Where the
debt is evidenced by a written obligation the gift may be effectuated by the delivery or surrender thereof to the
debtor,[8] or by the cancellation or destruction thereof,[9] or possibly, in some jurisdictions, by other means, such
as an indorsement on the obligation,[10] a release or receipt,[11] a separate statement or memorandum as to a gift
or the payment of the debt,[12] instructions to a third person as to the disposition of the obligation,[13] or the
failure or refusal of the creditor to demand or accept payment.[14] Where the debt is not evidenced by a written
obligation, the gift may be effectuated, ordinarily, only by a release, receipt, or other equivalent instrument in
writing,[15] but exceptions to this rule have been made in some instances.[16] In the case of a debt evidenced by a
book account or other record, various conclusions have been reached as to the efficacy of an entry or notation
therein or thereon.[17] There does not appear to be any necessity or occasion for the classification of the cases
considered herein on the basis of the character of the gift in question as inter vivos or causa mortis.[18] In so far
as any distinction in this respect may be material, it will sufficiently appear from the context.
California Collins v Maude (1904) 144 Cal 289, 77 P 945 Connelly v Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Asso.
(1956) 138 Cal App2d 303, 291 P2d 501 Illinois Wilson v Keller (1881) 9 Ill App 347 Brown v Hamsmith (1927)
247 Ill App 358 Massachusetts Slade v Mutrie (1892) 156 Mass 19, 30 NE 168 Nebraska Schroeder v Ely (1955)
161 Neb 252, 73 NW2d 165 Pennsylvania Re Russell's Estate (1956) 385 Pa 557, 123 A2d 708, 63 ALR2d 251 Re
Mearkle's Estate (1937) 129 Pa Super 93, 194 A 756 Re Atlee's Estate (1951) 52 Lanc L Rev 305 [FN4] California
Connelly v Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Asso. (1956) 138 Cal App2d 303, 291 P2d 501 Florida Ross v
Walker (1902) 44 Fla 704, 32 So 934 Illinois Berry v Berry (1925) 238 Ill App 507 Massachusetts Cardoza v
Leveroni (1919) 233 Mass 310, 123 NE 672 New York Re Green's Estate (1936) 247 App Div 540, 288 NYS 249
Pennsylvania Re Russell's Estate (1956) 385 Pa 557, 123 A2d 708, 63 ALR2d 251 Texas Crutcher v J ohnson
County (1935, Tex Civ App) 79 SW2d 932 (declaring that a mere intention to make a gift, no matter how clearly it
may be expressed, which has not been carried into effect, is ineffective for such purpose) In Ross v Walker (1902)
44 Fla 704, 32 So 934, supra, it was said: "Where the thing given consists of a debt due the donor by the donee,
and no receipt is actually given, no credit entered, and where the evidence of the debt is not canceled, destroyed,
delivered to the donee, or otherwise placed beyond the control of the donor, no valid gift is effected." [FN5]
California Connelly v Bank of America Nat. Trust & Sav. Asso. (1956) 138 Cal App2d 303, 291 P2d 501 Georgia
Helmer v Helmer (1924) 159 Ga 376, 125 SE 849, 37 ALR 1137 Iowa Gray v Nelson (1889) 77 Iowa 63, 41 NW
566 Michigan Green v Langdon (1873) 28 Mich 221 J ohnson v Douglas (1937) 281 Mich 247, 274 NW 780
Pennsylvania Re Russell's Estate (1956) 385 Pa 557, 123 A2d 708, 63 ALR2d 251 As to presumption of
acceptance, see 13, infra. [FN6] Particularly as to burden of proof, presumptions, and the weight and
sufficiency of evidence, see 13, infra. [FN7] As to particular modes or means, see 2- 9, 12, infra. [FN8]
See 2, infra. [FN9] See 3, infra. [FN10] See 4, infra. [FN11] See 6, infra. [FN12] See 7, infra.
[FN13] See 8, infra. [FN14] See 9, infra. [FN15] Illinois Berry v Berry (1925) 238 Ill App 507 (written
assignment or some other equivalent instrument) Indiana Michael v Holland (1942) 111 Ind App 34, 40 NE2d 362
Massachusetts Millett v Temple (1932) 280 Mass 543, 182 NE 921, 84 ALR 378 New York Re Gregg (1895) 11
Misc 153, 32 NYS 1103 (receipt or some other equivalent instrument) Van Cleef v Maxfield (1918) 103 Misc 448,
171 NYS 333, affd 186 App Div 906, 172 NYS 923 (release or receipt) Pennsylvania Re Russell's Estate (1956)
385 Pa 557, 123 A2d 708, 63 ALR2d 251 (release, receipt, or other writing) In Millett v Temple (1932) 280 Mass
543, 182 NE 921, 84 ALR 378, it was stated as a general proposition that a gift to the debtor of a debt not

evidenced by a note or other instrument cannot be made effective without a deed, the execution of an adequate
release or transfer in writing, or the performance of some other act placing the debt beyond the legal control of the
creditor. [FN16] See 7 and 12[c], infra. [FN17] See 5, infra. [FN18] For distinction between gifts inter
vivos and causa mortis generally, see 24 Am J ur, Gifts 410. Section 2 Footnotes: [FN19] For references
to other modes, see 1, supra.
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin

FW: I have one hour today at 3pm at the UHaul on E. 9th street to grab
my property
Sent: Thu 3/22/12 12:41 PM
Dear Jeff,
I have one hour today at 3pm at the UHaul on E. 9th street to grab my
property (the stuff I need right away) at the 2255 E. 9th St. Then the
judge said for stuff that is not so urgent I have one 8 hour period
anytime between now and 5pm on the 22nd (but I have to provid 24
hours advance notice) to get the rest (ie, couches, etc). I would really
like to get some stuff today and put it in the fifth wheel. I want to see
what its like living in a 5th wheel for at least a few days or so, I have
always kind of bee intrigued by them....I know we are playing it by ear,
etc.

Then i have one 8 hour period (after providing 24 hours notice to Western Nevada
Management's Sue King) between now and 5pm on the 22nd to remove the rest of my
property). I like this location its unique and Its closer to the courts, less gas
money, etc. Is there any way you could help some today, between 3 and 4 or
provide the use of a trailer or truck to move some of my stuff? ...So I want to
grab stuff today and move it to the trailer....then grab the rest according to the terms of
the Order rendered today by J udge Finley of the RJ C at the hearing on my Motion To
Return Personal Property.
I can't figure out how to dial out on the office phones here....and now my pc phone is
acting up....
Oh, I am just now OVERDRAWN. i THINK i CAN GET SOME OTHER
CLIENTS TO PAY ME, BUT UNTIL THEN, COULD YOU HELP ME TODAY TO
AVOID AN OVERDRAFT? i THINK IF i GO DEPOSIT CASH RIGHT NOW IT
WILL AVOIDE THE $35 FEE....MY Bank of America account number is 004969 289
230 if there is any chance you could deposit like $20 or something. $100 would be
better, but...
Show details for Business Economy Chk - 9230
Hide details for Business Economy Chk - 9230
Business Economy Chk - 9230
-$8.27
Go PaperlessBusiness Economy Chk - 9230
View account detailsBusiness Economy Chk - 9230
View StatementsBusiness Economy Chk - 9230
View/Edit Overdraft ProtectionBusiness Economy Chk - 9230
More ServicesBusiness Economy Chk - 9230
Investment accounts

Thanks,
OH, ps, I am at like
Zach Coughlin, Esq., 1422 E. 9th St. #2, RENO, NV 89512, tel: 775 338 8118, fax: 949 667 7402;

3 22 12 To 5 4 12 0204 Emails To and From Keepsmilenjn@Gmail - Com Nichols Eastman

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 22 12 To 5 4 12 0204 Emails To and From Keepsmilenjn@Gmail - Com Nichols Eastman

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Print Close

You might also like