Interesting and confusing situation posed to me..
When there are multiple households a child lives within, who retains ownership of items provided to a child by one parent if said child passes?
So far: HOBLYN v. JOHNSON Seems to have the most information. Yet it seems to have also oppositional statements as well.
HOBLYN v. JOHNSON 2002 WY 152 55 P.3d 1219 Case Number: 01-169 Decided: 10/09/2002
- "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." [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: "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."
This reads to me that the one parent(or even a third party) can claim ownership of items without recourse for the other parent... (Confused?)
Yet the next paragraph indicates that-
"Despite the general rule, parents do retain property rights in certain items they provide their children for the purpose of support, maintenance, or education such as clothing and books. 1 Kramer, Legal Rights of Children, supra at § 8.12; 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child, supra at § 119. It is uncontroverted the daughter's paternal grandfather gave the horse to her as a gift, the horse was titled in her name, and it was not necessary for her support or maintenance. As a matter of law, the horse belonged to the daughter, and the parents had no implied authority over it simply because of their proprietary interest in the premises on which it was located."
Which is it? I'm leaning toward the latter... and...
If a parent has items that were provide for "support, maintenance, or education" in their custody when the child passed the death created an "involuntary bailment" of these items, correct?
However, when said parent refused requests the others request to return property the bailment became "voluntary" does it not?
Does that then constitute an act of conversion? If so what are the recourses?
I cannot find any instances where this kind of situation has gone to court, and with all candor find that hard to believe...