202200334 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse

202200334 in the amount of $8,500. See Mischke v. Mischke, 253 Neb. 439, 447-48, 571 N.W.2d 248, 255-56 (1997). November 3, 2017: Plaintiffs allege Defendant is responsible for a $21,000 withdrawal made from Howard's account at Home Federal Bank, as well an additional withdrawal of $4,400 on November 5, 2017. See Exhibits 34 and 35. It appears the authorizations and checks were signed by Howard and not by Defendant. When questioned about the funds, Defendant testified that he did not know what the funds were for and there was no evidence that he made the withdrawal or kept the funds. The plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden as to this transaction. See Adelung v. Adelung, 306 Neb. 646, 673, 947 N.W.2d 269, 291 (2020) (referencing prior case law rejecting an abuse of power of attorney when the principal acted directly by affixing her own signature). November 28, 2017: Defendant wrote a check to himself in the amount of $25,000 from Howard's account. A copy of the check no. 13853 was offered and received as Exhibit 40. The memo line for the check indicated "transfer and fencing." Defendant testified that he transferred the funds from Howard's account to his own account, with her permission, and used the money for the acreage, but he provided no further accounting as to how the funds were used. The Court finds this withdrawal and use of Howard's property was not in her best interest, but primarily benefited Defendant. Defendant did not have the authority to gift himself these funds. Plaintiffs shall have judgment in the amount of $25,000. December 4, 2017: Defendant wrote a check to American Fence from Howard's account in the amount of $4,000. A copy of the check no. 13854 was offered and received as Exhibit 37. Defendant acknowledged withdrawing the funds and using the money for fencing on the acreage. The Court finds Defendant has satisfied his burden of providing an accounting for these funds. Unlike the prior transaction, which Defendant issued to himself, check no. 13854 was paid to a third party vendor and used to improve the acreage. Because plaintiffs have now been awarded the acreage, they may not also recover the value of improvements made to the property, as doing so could amount to a double recovery. See Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 254 Neb. 506, 516, 576 N.W.2d 817, 825 (1998) ("As a 13 Certified Page 13 of 17