Catherine Nicole Chittum v. Commonwealth of Virginia
0783203
Va. Ct. App.Jan 25, 2022Background:
- Anita executed a durable power of attorney (March 22, 2017) naming her husband and daughter Catherine Chittum as agents; Anita later moved in with Chittum.
- After Henry (Anita’s husband) died June 1, 2017, Anita added Chittum as a joint owner on a Member One credit union account that then received ~ $202,862 in life-insurance proceeds payable to Anita.
- Chittum used some funds to pay Anita’s debts and bills; on July 10, 2017 Chittum wrote a $163,600 check payable to herself with the memo “gift.”
- Anita testified she did not authorize the $163,600 transfer and that those funds and Social Security were all she had to live on; she revoked Chittum’s POA in September 2017.
- A bench trial convicted Chittum of grand larceny; she argued on appeal lack of intent because she was a joint account holder, held POA, and the transfer was a gift/authorized by Anita. The trial court credited Anita and convicted; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint-account title or POA created a claim of right to transfer Anita’s funds | Chittum: joint owner and agent, so she had right/authority to transfer funds | Commonwealth: joint title and POA do not authorize taking another’s funds against the owner’s wishes | Court: Rejected Chittum; joint ownership allocates by net contribution and POA duties forbid self-dealing; no right to transfer Anita’s money |
| Whether the $163,600 was a gift or taken with Anita’s consent | Chittum: Anita intended gift/consented; funds used with Anita’s knowledge for bills and house | Commonwealth: Anita testified she did not authorize the transfer and it was against her best interest | Court: Rejected gift claim; credited Anita’s testimony and found evidence supports larceny conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 107 (defines larceny as wrongful taking with intent to permanently deprive)
- Britt v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 569 (larceny elements and intent)
- Smith v. Commonwealth, 296 Va. 450 (trial-court judgment presumed correct on sufficiency review)
- Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455 (reasonable-hypothesis principle expresses Commonwealth’s burden beyond reasonable doubt)
- Flanagan v. Commonwealth, 58 Va. App. 681 (factfinder may disbelieve accused’s self-serving testimony)
- McNeal v. Commonwealth, 282 Va. 16 (factfinder sole judge of credibility and weight of testimony)