YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM Eileen Murphy often cared for her elderly neighbor, Thomas Kenney. He paid her $25 per day for her help and once gave her a bank certificate of deposit worth $25,000. Murphy alleged that shortly before his death, Kenney gave her a large block of shares in three corporations.

He called his broker to instruct him to transfer the shares to Murphy’s name, but the broker was unavailable. So Kenney told Murphy to write her name on the shares and keep them, which she did. Two weeks later Kenney died.

When Murphy presented the shares to Kenney’s broker to transfer ownership to her, the broker refused because Kenney had never signed them over to Murphy. Was Murphy entitled to the

$25,000? To the shares? Argument for Murphy: The purpose of the law is to do what a donor intended, and it is obvious that Kenney intended Murphy to have the $25,000 and the shares. Argument for the Estate: Murphy is not entitled to the $25,000 because we have no way of knowing what Kenney’s intentions were when he gave her the money. She is not entitled to the shares of stock because Kenney’s failure to endorse them over to her meant he never delivered them.