Kennedy v. Dabbiere

545 F. Supp. 3d 269 (2021)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Kennedy v. Dabbiere

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
545 F. Supp. 3d 269 (2021)

Facts

In 1941, a Virginia property called Hickory Hill was sold along with specific items designated as “personal property,” including a six-foot-tall decorative urn on the front lawn. Hickory Hill was later conveyed to John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Kennedy for a time and then later to Ethel Kennedy, wife of Robert F. Kennedy, Sr. In December 2009, Ethel contracted to sell Hickory Hill and all its “fixtures” to Alan Dabbiere (defendant). After this contract was finalized but before Ethel vacated the property, she gifted the urn to her daughter Kerry Kennedy (plaintiff). The person hired to remove the urn did not complete the job before Dabbiere took possession of Hickory Hill. Dabbiere then asserted that the urn was a fixture of the property that had been conveyed with the sale. If so, Ethel could not have legally gifted it to Kerry. Kerry disagreed, arguing that the urn was personal property, not a fixture, and thus had not been included in the sale. Ultimately, Kerry and Dabbiere spoke by phone. Dabbiere claimed Kerry told him the urn had sentimental value to her because it had been a gift from her aunt Jacqueline Kennedy. Relying on this representation, Dabbiere agreed to give up his claim that the urn was a fixture that belonged to him. In exchange, Kerry would give up her claim to immediate possession and allow Dabbiere to keep the urn on the property for 10 years. Kerry would take possession of the urn in June 2020. The parties put this agreement in writing. However, in 2020, Dabbiere refused to give the urn to Kerry, claiming Kerry had misrepresented the urn’s history. Dabbiere had discovered that the urn had been on the property since at least 1941, before Jacqueline Kennedy could have gifted it. Kerry sued Dabbiere in federal court, seeking to enforce the 2010 agreement and moved for summary judgment. Dabbiere opposed the motion, arguing that the 2010 agreement was unenforceable because Kerry had not provided valid consideration to make it binding. According to Dabbiere, the only possible consideration Kerry had provided was her promise not to exercise a claim to possess the urn for 10 years. Dabbiere contended this promise had no value because the urn was a fixture and Kerry had no legal claim to it that she could exercise. The court considered the motion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Trenga, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership