Hutchings v. Hutchings, 2019 Ohio 5362

Charles and Elise Hutchings executed durable powers of attorney giving son John broad authority, including to create irrevocable trusts and to engage in transactions in which he had a personal interest.
John, acting under that POA, executed an irrevocable family trust on August 12, 2013; the trust included a gift‑balancing clause that would offset lifetime gifts to children against postmortem distributions.
After both parents died in 2014, John (as trustee) used Elise’s ledger to calculate lifetime gifts: Chip’s family had received far more than John’s, and gift‑balancing resulted in Chip receiving no distribution from roughly $300,000 in trust assets.
Chip sued, seeking to void only the gift‑balancing clause and proceeded at trial on a conversion claim; the jury awarded Chip half the trust assets plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
On appeal the Sixth District reversed, holding the conversion verdict was contrary to law because Chip had no ownership or possessory interest in trust assets and John had facial authority under the unchallenged POA; Chip offered no clear‑and‑convincing proof of undue influence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Chip have ownership/possession required for conversion?	Conversion occurred when the trust was executed and/or upon distribution; the gift‑balancing clause wrongfully deprived Chip of his share.	Trust terms prevented Chip from owning or possessing assets; assets were in the trust and distributions were subject to the gift‑balancing clause.	Reversed: Chip lacked ownership/possession; conversion claim fails.
Did John exceed authority / was the gift‑balancing clause invalid as self‑dealing?	John exceeded his authority by inserting the gifting clause; the clause was not the parents’ intent.	The durable POA expressly authorized John to create irrevocable trusts and permitted self‑dealing; execution was facially valid.	Held: Express POA authority precludes a presumption of invalidity; to invalidate the trust Chip needed clear‑and‑convincing proof of undue influence, which he did not provide.
Were punitive damages properly awarded / standard applied?	Chip argued punitive damages were warranted for malice in denying inheritance.	Punitive damages require compensatory damages and proof by clear and convincing evidence.	Moot/against plaintiff: Because compensatory award cannot stand (conversion fails), punitive damages could not be awarded.

Joyce v. General Motors Corp., 49 Ohio St.3d 93 (1990) (plaintiff bears burden to prove conversion elements)
Zacchini v. Scripps‑Howard Broadcasting Co., 47 Ohio St.2d 224 (1976) (conversion burden principles)
Whetstone v. Binner, 146 Ohio St.3d 395 (2016) (punitive damages require clear and convincing proof and arise only incident to compensable harm)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (legal sufficiency and manifest‑weight standards of review)
State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (1997) (definition of sufficiency of the evidence)
Niskanen v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 486 (2009) (punitive damages prerequisites)
Testa v. Roberts, 44 Ohio App.3d 161 (1988) (power of attorney as written authorization for agent acts)
Sawyer v. Lebanon Citizens Natl. Bank, 105 Ohio App.3d 464 (1995) (partial invalidity of trust provisions)
Gwinner v. Schoeny, 111 Ohio App. 177 (1960) (striking invalid trust provisions while preserving remainder)