In a 2008 case, the Iowa Court of Appeals had to resolve the ownership of property in a divorce case involving a couple named Brian and Rebecca Gall. (No jokes, please, about whether the court had the “gall” to do this or that.) One of the assets in dispute was a Roth IRA that Rebecca, on the advice of her accountant, had transferred to Brian. Brian argued that this made the IRA his property, and the court of appeal agreed:
“Rebecca transferred the monies to the Roth IRA in Brian’s name only upon the advice of her CPA. This was done as a ‘tax maneuver’ to reduce her tax liability. In filing her tax returns, she represented under penalty of perjury to the Internal Revenue Service, an official agency of the United States government, that the Roth IRA was Brian’s, not hers. As a result of employing this tax maneuver, Rebecca’s tax liability was indeed reduced. Rebecca then asserts to the courts that the IRA was hers, not Brian’s. She cannot have it both ways.”
And then, in a footnote, the court cited what might be considered some . . . unconventional precedent:
“The movie Miracle on 34th Street comes to mind:
“Fred Gailey: Your Honor, every one of these letters is addressed to Santa Claus. The Post Office has delivered them. Therefore the Post Office Department, a branch of the Federal Government, recognizes this man Kris Kringle to be the one and only Santa Claus.
“Judge Henry X. Harper: Uh, since the United States Government declares this man to be Santa Claus, this court will not dispute it. Case dismissed.
“Miracle on 34th Street (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.1947).”
Yes, not for the first time did a real-life court draw inspiration from the 1947 Christmas classic, “Miracle on 34th Street,” in which Kris Kringle, a jolly man with a white beard, a twinkle in his eye, and a desire only to do good and to make children happy, is put on trial for his sanity. Among movies that end with a dramatic legal climax, its courtroom scenes are far more authentic than in many movies supposedly about the law.
And as that Iowa court case demonstrates, a number of real-life courts and judges seem to confuse the film with real life, too. More than one judge has used “Miracle on 34th Street” as “precedent” in discussing a real-life legal dispute.
For example, “Miracle” turned up in Reichardt v. Creasey, a 2010 Arkansas wrongful death lawsuit (a civil case in which family members sue the person responsible for a loved one’s death). The case dismissed because of one party’s failure to serve papers on the other properly. The Court of Appeals of Arkansas agreed, relying on an earlier Arkansas precedent.
One of the judges, unhappy with the result, expressed his displeasure by citing “Miracle” as a metaphor: “In the Christmas classic, Miracle on 34th Street, Judge Henry X. Harper decides that Kris Kringle is Santa Claus because a postal worker in New York decides to deliver mail addressed to Santa Claus to Mr. Kringle. The result is Mr. Kringle is released from a mental hospital in time to deliver his Christmas gifts. While this result makes for heart-warming holiday entertainment, the result that we have to accept today is anything but heart-warming. It is, however, a gift to the slick and unscrupulous who avoid the reach of our justice system.”
And finally, in a case called Skala v. Edlich, from New York City itself — where the original “Miracle” took place — a landlord-tenant dispute also borrowed, at least a little, from the role the Post Office played in the movie. The issue was whether the tenants had moved out of an apartment, so that the building owner was justified in concluding that the premises had been abandoned:
“[A]ll of the cards sent by the clerk of the court . . . were returned by the Post Office with the notation ‘Return To Sender. Moved Left No Address. Unable To Forward. Return To Sender.’ If the Post Office can be used as conclusive proof to establish the existence of Santa Claus (see, People of the State of New York v. Kris Kringle, ‘The Miracle on 34th Street’) surely the information provided by the Post Office to the court clerk is uncontroverted evidence that the respondents have abandoned the premises.”
In fact, that courtroom scene at the end of “Miracle” has been cited in nearly a half-dozen real court opinions . . . which, in the end, may be the biggest miracle wrought by “Miracle” of all.
Frank Zotter, Jr. is a Ukiah attorney.
Hence then, the article about judicial follies life imitates art was published today ( ) and is available on Ukiah Daily Journal ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judicial Follies: Life imitates art )
Also on site :