David Tikiob v. Sue Tikiob-Carlson
2020-0027-PWG
Del. Ch.Sep 22, 2021Background
- In 2013 Richard D. Tikiob, Sr. executed a durable power of attorney (POA) naming his daughter Sue Tikiob‑Carlson as agent; Richard Sr. later developed dementia and moved to assisted‑living.
- Petitioner David Tikiob (a son) is not an agent and, in January 2020, petitioned under the Durable Personal Power of Attorney Act (DPPAA) seeking an accounting, alleging self‑dealing, and asking the court to revoke the POA.
- Sue managed Richard Sr.’s finances and real‑estate portfolio (seasonal rentals), sold two vacant lots, employed bookkeeping/consulting (Focus Dynamics) and paid a son, Richard Jr., for property maintenance; Sue lives out of state but oversaw care and payments.
- Disputed transactions identified by David included transfers from the principal’s bank to accounts in Sue’s name ($65,000 and $49,000), transfers to an ‘‘Antiks’’ account, payments to Focus Dynamics (~$17k), payments to Richard Jr. (~$34k), payment of Sue’s litigation fees from principal funds, removal of items from the house, and alleged withholding of bank statements.
- On summary judgment the Master treated the evidence in David’s favor where appropriate but found no specific admissible evidence of breaches of duties enumerated in 12 Del. C. §49A‑114 (duty of loyalty, good faith, care, records, etc.). The Master recommended granting Sue’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Amended Petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (David) | Defendant's Argument (Sue) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sue breached fiduciary duties under the DPPAA | Sue engaged in self‑dealing, misused principal funds, and acted for her own inheritance | Actions were authorized by POA, performed for principal’s benefit, and documented | No specific admissible evidence of a DPPAA breach; summary judgment for Sue |
| Failure to disclose bank records / need for an accounting | Withheld County Bank statements and other documents, suggesting concealment | Any delay caused by bank; produced documents in discovery; no statutory duty to disclose to sibling | No duty under DPPAA to disclose records to a sibling absent request by principal/fiduciary or court order; no breach |
| Transfers to accounts in Sue’s name and to the "Antiks" account; payments to Focus Dynamics | Transfers show personal use/self‑dealing; payments to her company and family were conflicts | Transfers used for property renovations, caregiving, bookkeeping; Focus Dynamics and Richard Jr. provided legitimate services at reasonable rates | Transactions, on the record, appear to have been for principal’s benefit; no admissible evidence that amounts or purposes were improper |
| Payment of Sue’s legal fees; removal of household items; health‑care communications | Paying Sue’s counsel from principal’s funds and removal of items evidence misuse; blocked David from provider info | POA authorizes employing attorneys and disposing of property; fees were reasonably incurred for defense and administration; health‑care communications governed by separate health‑care POA | Payment of attorneys’ fees was within agent authority (subject to later disgorgement if breach proven); removal of items reasonable to protect property; health‑care matters outside DPPAA scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Geier, 671 A.2d 1368 (Del. 1996) (standard for viewing evidence on summary judgment)
- In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., 954 A.2d 346 (Del. Ch. 2008) (summary judgment burden and need for specific admissible evidence)
- Estate of Eller v. Barton, 31 A.3d 895 (Del. 2011) (elements for establishing breach of fiduciary duty)
- Feinberg v. Makhson, 407 A.2d 201 (Del. 1979) (opposition to summary judgment requires countervailing evidentiary submissions)
- Merrill v. Crothall‑American, Inc., 606 A.2d 96 (Del. 1992) (evidentiary standards referenced in summary judgment review)
- In re Gaylord Container Corp. S’holders Litig., 753 A.2d 462 (Del. Ch. 2000) (triable‑issue standard at summary judgment)