ILNews

Justices rule against POA on joint-account funds issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled against a woman who was made power of attorney by the man she worked for as a caretaker and opened bank accounts in both their names. The presumption is that the woman’s use of her power of attorney to benefit herself made those accounts invalid, and she failed to overcome that presumption to allow her to inherit the money from those accounts.

Harry Rickert hired Keta Taylor to take care of his ailing wife. After his wife died, Taylor continued to care for Rickert until he died in 2006. Rickert had no children and he divided his estate equally among nieces and nephews, Taylor, and Carole Baker. Baker was named personal representative of the estate.

In 1997, he made Taylor a general power of attorney. She used this POA to open13 joint accounts for her and Rickert without his involvement. The trial court ordered the funds in all accounts and CDs be released to their presumptive owners. The estate appealed and a split Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

In the case Matter of the Estate of Harry L. Rickert, No. 18S04-1002-CV-118, the justices determined that the Non-Probate Transfer Act does not override the common law and statutory presumptions of invalidity of transactions in which a holder of a power attorney uses that power to benefit the holder. The NPTA creates a presumption that joint ownership of a bank account is intended to transfer the account to any survivors at the death of an owner.

A person holding a power of attorney is in a fiduciary relationship to the person granting the power and this case is a classic example of self-dealing by a fiduciary, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

“On the face of the transactions Taylor used her position as attorney-in-fact for Rickert to transfer an interest in Rickert’s assets to herself. At common law, such a transaction was presumed to be invalid,” he wrote, adding Indiana Code Section 30-5-9-2(b) eliminates the presumption of invalidity of a transaction between the principal and attorney-in-fact only if it’s made by the principal.

If undue influence is presumed, it’s up to Taylor to prove by clear and convincing proof that her use of her power of attorney was “voluntary and fair,” which she failed to do.

The justices also rejected Taylor’s argument that since the estate filed her deposition with the trial court, but didn’t cite it in summary judgment proceedings or offer it into evidence at trial, she should be allowed to testify in spite of the Dead Man’s Statute.

“In order to waive objection to the competence of a witness under the Dead Man’s Statute by taking advantage of a deposition of a person who is adverse to a decedent’s estate, the estate must use the deposition by offering it into evidence at trial or pretrial hearing, or citing it to the court as, for example, by designating it in support of or opposition to a summary judgment motion,” wrote Justice Boehm.

They remanded with directions to order restoration to the estate of bank accounts owned of record by Rickert and Taylor that were created through her use of the power of attorney and lack any supporting documentation indicating participation by Rickert.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT