Court Opinion

ID: 9573282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:51:41.760962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:25.648717
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
concurring in judgment.
It has been said before and will be said again: Hard cases make bad law. This is one of them.
In my view, this case is unique. The principal reason it is unique is the power of attorney given by the husband to the wife, the motives which led up to the creation of that power of attorney and the conduct of the parties while it remained in effect. Those facts established a fiduciary (agency) relationship as to transactions covered by the power of attorney and provide evidence of such relationship as to other transactions. On the one hand this special relationship negates or is evidence tending to negate the presumption of gift from husband to wife. Code Ann. § 108-116. On the other hand this relationship invoked numerous duties; e.g., Code Ann. § § 4-205,4-208, 4-210, 37-708.
To me, this is not a resulting trust case. It may be a trust arising from fraud. Code Ann. § 108-106 (2). It may be a suit for damages for breach of fiduciary duty (see above), in which case the deceased’s estate should be joined directly. In any event, suffice it to say that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment as to the entire case. I therefore concur in the judgment.