Court Opinion

ID: 9680091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:19:25.987041+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:18:45.761203
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. The law correctly places upon a fiduciary the obligation to show by clear, cogent and convincing evidence that his self dealings with the trust property were authorized. Regarding the checks which appellee wrote to himself or his family and on which Mrs. Sharpe filed gift tax returns to the Internal Revenue, I cannot say that the chancellor erred; although the issue is close. However, I cannot agree with the majority that appellee discharged his burden of proof as to the checks written to himself or his family on which no gift tax returns were made. We have in the record only the testimony of appellee that those checks were gifts. Surely the majority is not saying that the fact that appellee was kind to and considerate of Mrs. Sharpe corroborated his testimony. If that be the majority’s view, then all embezzlements by a kind and considerate fiduciary should be considered gifts. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.