Ford v. Reynolds, 315 Ga. App. 200

Feb 2004: Reynolds named as Mobley's attorney-in-fact under a broad power of attorney; Helen Mobley dies, leaving Reynolds as sole attorney-in-fact.
Power of attorney authorized Reynolds to manage Mobley's property and to make gifts to herself up to either $5,000 or 5% of value, whichever is greater.
Aug 2008: Mobley changes Wachovia beneficiary from estate to Ford, then in Sep 2008 changes back to Estate; Dec 2008 changes again to Ford.
Dec 15, 2008: Reynolds obtains physician's letter asserting Mobley unable to manage his affairs, to facilitate monitoring and paying for care.
Jan 2009: Reynolds changes Wachovia accounts' beneficiaries back to Estate, issues checks to nursing home, funeral home, law firm, and herself up to $5,000, and commingles funds; Mobley dies Jan 12, 2009.
Ford sues Wachovia and Reynolds for tortious interference with economic expectancy and for breach of duties arising from the power of attorney; trial court granted summary judgment to Reynolds; Ford appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mitchell requires proof that the tortfeasor benefited.	Ford argues Mitchell's requirement is limited and not mandatory.	Reynolds contends Mitchell's benefit element is necessary.	Yes; Mitchell requires proof of benefit.

Mitchell v. Langley, 143 Ga. 827 (1915) (malice and fraud; diversion of expected benefit needed for action)
Morgan v. Morgan, 256 Ga. 250 (1986) (quotes Mitchell on necessary elements)
Morrison v. Morrison, 284 Ga. 112 (2008) (context of fiduciary self-interest; supports view of benefit element)