202200334 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

202200334 A. Count I: The Acreaee It is undisputed that Howard executed a power of attorney on October 25, 2017, designating Defendant as her attorney in fact. See Exhibit 20. The designation granted only general authority, rather than specific authority, as Howard did not include any authorization for Defendant to make a gift or create or change rights of survivorship. See id. By statute then, Defendant was not permitted to use the power of attorney to make any gifts on behalf of Howard to anyone, especially to himself. Nor was Defendant, as Howard's agent, permitted to take any interest in her property, "whether by gift, right of survivorship, beneficiary designation, or otherwise." Neb. Rev. Stat. §30-4024(2). This is true even though Defendant was Howard's spouse when the acreage was purchased on November 20, 2017, because he was still required to have specific authority to make gifts or create rights of survivorship for himself, and he did not. The evidence shows that Defendant acted as Howard's power of attorney at the time of purchase and when the deed for the acreage was prepared. Indeed, the district court previously made this same determination in the dissolution action when it found Defendant acted as Howard's power of attorney at the time the deed was prepared. See Exhibit 8. Further, it is clear that Howard did not attend the closing and Defendant signed the settlement documents for her as power of attorney. While Defendant argues that he had Howard's oral permission to proceed, Nebraska courts have held that unless a power of attorney expressly provides for specific authority, "a principal's oral authorization is not effective to empower the agent to utilize broad powers in the power of attorney instrument to make gifts." Stehlik, 24 Neb. App. at 42, 881 N.W.2d at 7. Defendant also suggests that he was not acting as Howard's power of attorney when he signed the settlement documents on her behalf, but he provides no alternative legal theory or authority which gave him the right to do so. While a gift can be presumed when husband and wife take title to property as joint tenants, even if one spouse pays all the consideration, that presumption is rebuttable. See Brown v. Borland, 230 Neb. 391, 395, 432 N.W.2d 13, 17 (1988). The Court finds that the marital presumption, even if it applied, has been rebutted in this matter for many of the same reasons already noted. Howard also stated in her April 10, 2018 Last Will and Testament that Defendant took advantage of her for financial gain. See Exhibit 9 Certified Page 9 of 17