- 6 -
attorneys-in-fact to make gifts of their principal’s property.
Id. at *3.
The Connecticut Superior Court noted that most courts that
have considered this issue have concluded that under general POAs
attorneys-in-fact do not have the authority to make gifts of
their principal’s property. Id. at *2; see also King v. Bankerd,
492 A.2d 608, 612 (Md. 1985) (and the numerous cases from Alaska
to Utah cited therein); 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, sec. 31 (Supp.
2000).
In discussing the extensive case authority on this issue,
the Connecticut Superior Court emphasized the following policy
considerations that have been recognized: An attorney-in-fact
owes to the principal the highest duty of loyalty; gifts of a
principal’s property generally will be adverse to the interests
of the principal; and, if a principal wished to make a gift of
property, the principal could do so on his or her own. Estate of
Antone v. Staphos, supra at *3; King v. Bankerd, supra at 613.
In Estate of Antone, the Connecticut Superior Court noted
expressly that the broad, “catchall” language in the Act (such as
“otherwise to dispose of”) should not be interpreted to convey a
power to make gifts of a principal’s property. See also Aiello
v. Clark, 680 P.2d 1162, 1165-1166 (Alaska 1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011