- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011