- 17 - the issue presented here as we believe the highest State court would decide it. See Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch, 387 U.S. 456 (1967); Estate of Goree v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-331. Under Oregon law, powers of attorney must be strictly construed. See United States Natl. Bank v. Herron, 144 P. 661, 663 (Or. 1914); Wade v. Northup, 140 P. 451 (Or. 1914); Security Sav. Bank v. Smith, 62 P. 794 (Or. 1900); Coulter v. Portland Trust Co., 26 P. at 567. The rule that a power of attorney must be strictly construed, however, “does not require that it shall be so construed as to defeat the intention of the parties. * * * A strained construction should never be given to defeat that intention, nor to embrace in the power what was not intended by the parties." Wade v. Northup, supra at 458 (citing Hemstreet v. Burdick, 90 Ill. 444 (1878)). “[T]he intention of the donor of the power is the great principle that governs”. Brown v. Laird, 291 P. 352, 354 (Or. 1930). Although the intention of the donor ordinarily is gleaned from the language of the power of attorney, see id., where the language of the power is broad and is not free from ambiguity, Oregon law requires that we examine the 12(...continued) 1997); Fender v. Fender, 329 S.E.2d 430, 431 (S.C. 1985); F.M. Stigler, Inc. v. H.N.C. Realty Co., 595 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); Bryant v. Bryant, 882 P.2d 169, 172 (Wash. 1994). In contrast, at least two States have enacted statutes providing that a general power of attorney contains an implied authority to make gifts of the principal’s assets under certain circumstances. See Ala. Code sec. 26-1-2.1 (Michie Supp. 1994); Va. Code Ann. sec. 11-9.5 (Michie 1999).Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011