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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?