202200334 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

202200334 1. She further verified in an earlier affidavit, offered and received without objection, that Defendant used the power of attorney and a "sham marriage" to acquire property that she paid for entirely by herself in order to "see that title to the property would be joint tenants." See Exhibit 7. The evidence in this matter is clear that regardless of the marriage, Defendant signed the documents on behalf of himself and for Howard as her power of attorney without the specific authority to do so. He then took a survivorship interest in property she funded exclusively in violation of the POAA. Even presuming the gift was somehow permissible, the court further finds that the purchase was not in Howard's best interest, especially considering the factors identified in §30-4040. Defendant admitted that there was no intention for Howard to live at the acreage. The primary, and arguably sole, purpose of the property was for Defendant to have a place to keep his horses, although he added that Howard looked forward to spending time there herself and she also enjoyed horses. Howard lived in assisted living and continued to live in assisted living after the purchase. Howard still owned another home that had not yet sold, and she notably had included that sale as a contingency in the original purchase agreement for the acreage, which was later removed by Defendant using the power of attorney. The evidence shows that Howard had no need for a large acreage at her age and in light of her serious medical issues. The court fmds that the purchase of the acreage promoted only the Defendant's interests and is the type of self-dealing prohibited by statute. See Crosby, 266 Neb. at 836, 669 N.W.2d at 645 ("A fiduciary's acquisition of a right of survivorship in property, even absent a possessory interest, is generally sufficient to establish that a fiduciary has profited from a transaction"). Defendant has also not satisfied his burden of proving the fairness of the transaction. See id. The transaction was not fair and the evidence is sufficient to show breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, and/or constructive fraud. According to Howard's treating physician, Howard was vulnerable for a number of reasons, most importantly because of her recent terminal cancer diagnosis. Howard also struggled with emotional regulation as a result of her stroke many years ago. While Defendant presented some evidence showing that Howard had managed her disability well, the evidence was clear that she was not fully functional and was heavily dependent on others. Howard was 10 Certified Page 10 of 17