Estate of Bronson
2017 S.D. LEXIS 30
S.D.2017Background
- Lester Bronson (principal) executed a power of attorney in 2003 appointing his son Leslie “Butch” Bronson as attorney-in-fact; Lester later visited his bank to remove his deceased wife and to add Butch as joint owner of a checking account.
- At the bank meeting, banker Nancy Byer explained that adding Butch would let him write checks and that the account would belong to Butch after Lester’s death; Lester confirmed these intentions.
- Lester allegedly had severe gout making handwriting difficult; the parties later stipulated that Butch signed Lester’s name on the bank form, though testimonies conflicted about who actually physically signed it.
- After Lester died, his daughters (Petitioners) sued Butch for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion, claiming signing Lester’s name was impermissible self-dealing under the power of attorney; circuit court found Butch acted as an amanuensis and awarded the account to Butch.
- Petitioners appealed the dismissal and sought appellate attorney’s fees from the estate; the trial court had admitted oral extrinsic evidence about the bank visit over Petitioners’ objection.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Butch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether signing Lester’s name constituted impermissible self-dealing under the power of attorney | Butch’s signing of Lester’s name was an act of self-dealing not authorized by the power of attorney | The signing was done as an amanuensis at Lester’s direction, not pursuant to authority to self-deal | Court held signing was amanuensis act, not exercise of power of attorney; no forbidden self-dealing |
| Admissibility of oral extrinsic evidence about bank meeting to show intent | Oral evidence cannot be used to expand power of attorney to permit self-dealing | Extrinsic evidence was used to show that signing was done in Lester’s presence and at his direction (amanuensis), not to create agency power | Court allowed extrinsic evidence for amanuensis fact; distinction between proving authority to self-deal and proving presence/direction |
| Whether an interested amanuensis (agent with a personal stake) can validly sign for the principal | If the amanuensis is interested, presumption of invalidity applies and must be rebutted | Butch rebutted presumption by showing Lester intended to sign using Butch as instrumentality (circumstantial evidence) | Court adopted California rule: interested amanuensis presumed invalid but may rebut; here evidence sufficed to rebut |
| Entitlement to appellate attorney’s fees from the estate | Petitioners claimed they stepped into personal representative’s shoes and thus are entitled to fees regardless of outcome | Respondent argued Petitioners were not court-appointed personal representatives or special administrators under statute | Court denied fees: Petitioners were not appointed personal representatives; action did not confer substantial benefit to estate |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickox v. Bacon, 97 N.W. 847 (S.D. 1903) (holds signature made by another in the principal’s presence and by his authority is treated as the principal’s own)
- Bienash v. Moller, 721 N.W.2d 431 (S.D. 2006) (power of attorney must be strictly construed; self-dealing requires explicit authorization)
- Hein v. Zoss, 887 N.W.2d 62 (S.D. 2016) (oral extrinsic evidence cannot be used to create authority to self-deal when instrument is unambiguous)
- Estate of Stephens v. Williams, 49 P.3d 1093 (Cal. 2002) (interested amanuensis presumption of invalidity; must show mechanical act and principal’s intent to use amanuensis)
- United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Banco Suizo-Panameno, S.A., 422 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1970) (where signature is affixed by another at the direction and in presence of the signer, it is the signer’s act, not the agent’s)