Opinion ID: 2630309
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: authority to gift under the power of attorney

Text: ¶16 The district court concluded that the durable power of attorney expressly granted Ray authority to gift Ida's personal property. We agree. In determining whether Ray held such authority, however, we must address both the language of the power of attorney and Kay's assertion that the terms of Ida's will limited Ray's authority under the power of attorney. We conclude that the power of attorney clearly gave Ray authority to gift Ida's personal property and that the will is irrelevant to that grant of authority. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Ray's authority under the power of attorney, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the stepchildren.
¶17 The durable power of attorney expressly granted Ray authority to gift Ida's personal property. The two-page instrument gives Ray broad authority over Ida's assets and personal property. It authorizes Ray in any and every way and manner [to] deal in and with goods, wares, and merchandise, [choses] in action, and other property in possession or in action, and to make, do, and transact all and every kind of business of what nature or kind soever. ¶18 More specifically, the power of attorney expressly authorizes Ray to gift property, whether real or personal. Kay contends that the power to gift property is a single minor reference and should not be given full effect. She offers no argument as to what makes this explicit grant of authority minor or why the power to gift need be referenced more than once to be effective. ¶19 In her brief, Kay cites to two Utah cases for the proposition that courts should strictly construe power of attorney instruments. But these cases only confirm our conclusion that Ray was authorized by the power of attorney to gift Ida's property. First, in Kline v. Utah Department of Health, the court of appeals described power of attorney instruments as follows: The scope of the authority so conferred may, by the terms of the instrument itself, be general or limited, but the instrument creating this agency relationship is to be strictly construed. [8] Even under the narrowest reading, the power to gift property, whether real or personal is explicit and clear; it granted Ray the authority to gift Ida's personal property. ¶20 Second, in Huntsman v. Huntsman, we held that the power of attorney at issue did not authorize a gift . . . for a mere nominal consideration. [9] We concluded that whether an attorney-in-fact has power to convey the principal's property for nominal consideration must be deducible from the language or manifest intent of the instrument. [10] But the power of attorney in Huntsman granted no specific authority to gift the principal's real or personal property. [11] The power of attorney executed by Ida is clearly distinguishable because, unlike the instrument in Huntsman, the authority to gift her personal property is plainly deducible from the language or manifest intent of the instrument. [12] ¶21 Kay also points to Utah Code section 75-5-503, which became effective after the events at issue in this case, to argue that public policy requires that the instrument expressly authorize[] power to make or revoke a gift of the principal's property. [13] But, as we have concluded, the power of attorney in Ray did expressly authorize him to gift Ida's personal property. Even if section 75-5-503 were controlling in this case, the outcome would be the same. Thus, the power of attorney granted Ray the authority to gift Ida's personal property.
¶22 Ida's will does not limit the authority granted by the power of attorney because it does not control the disposition of her assets during her lifetime. While they were signed on the same day, the power of attorney and will are two separate instruments that control the disposition of Ida's personal property during separate and distinct periods of time. The power of attorney controlled while Ida was alive; the will controlled upon her death. A `will' is the legal declaration of a person's intentions, which he or she wills to be performed after his or her death. It is an instrument by which a testator makes a disposition of real and personal property, to take effect after his or her death. [14] ¶23 Ida was still alive when Ray gifted her personal property. Because the power of attorney controlled disposition of Ida's personal property while she was alive, his authority to do so was derived from that instrument and not limited by the will. The power of attorney, which granted Ray authority to gift Ida's property, did not reference the will. It did not purport to limit the authority to gift by referencing the will. Therefore, the identification for disposition of the same property in the will does not limit the grant of authority in the power of attorney; it is irrelevant in this case. The district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Ray's authority to gift Ida's personal property.