BeFaithful can say she’s involved with the law but she has not had a legal ed like the rest of us.
Mon, Aug 20, 2018, 7:41 PM
Helen, I do not think in accordance with the Statute that B Faithful complied as she should listing what the cost of the project entailed, etc. Nevertheless, we live in a State where a charity pledge is not considered a debt. Thus we sure as hell do not owe her the money. And she should have provided far more information. I will be placing this on the blog.
.In Florida you can read the following Statute Chapter 496 or a legal opinion which is as follows:
Florida Estate Planning Lawyer Blog
The law of charitable pledges
by David M. Goldman
ShareTweet this PostShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Google+
One issue that occurs in estate planning is whether or not a charitable pledge can be enforced on a person’s estate after death. Wealthy individuals often make pledges to their favorite charitable organizations during their lifetime, only to die before fulfilling the pledge. Executors are then placed in the difficult situation of balancing its duty to ensure the estates assets for the decedentsheirs and to pay the money owed by the estate to the charitable organization. If a court rules the pledge is enforceable, the pledge must be paid out of the estate before the rest of the estate’s assets are distributed to the beneficiaries.
Courts will often find a charitable pledge enforceable when these situations occur:
The pledge is an offer to contract that becomes binding when work obligated by the pledge has begun, or the charity relying on the pledge has otherwise incurred liability.
Donor’s pledge has induced other pledges
The charity’s acceptance of the pledge imparts a promise to apply the funds according to the donor’s wishes, and his pledge is supported by that promise.
Public policy requires the donor’s liability on a pledge.
State law defines when a charitable pledge is enforceable. In Florida, a pledge is enforceable only if there is evidence of contractual consideration or promissory estoppel. (The principle that a promise made without consideration may nonetheless be reinforced to prevent injustice. If the promisor should have reasonably expected the promise to rely on the promise and if the promisee did actually actually rely on the promise to his or her detriment)
BeFaithful never provided any information or as to how the funds, if received were to be used. Therefore there was no consideration or was there a detriment. However, she still received $10,000 so she has no right to request additional money per Adam Putnam’s site in the State of Florida.
If I agree to make a contribution over the telephone and later change my mind, am I obligated to send the money I pledged?
A contribution is not a debt; therefore, you are under no obligation to follow through on a pledge. THEREFORE BE FAITHFUL HAS NO RIGHT TO THE $3000 It is the Law
If she has not followed the law a complaint could be made against her and its a felony.