908 N.W.2d 170
S.D.2018Background
- Barbara Morris signed a durable (non-springing) power of attorney appointing her daughter Pamala Bruckner as attorney‑in‑fact in October 2014; the POA granted broad authority including to "give or receive as a gift."
- Morris opened a pay‑on‑death account at Dakotaland Credit Union naming daughters Karen Wyman and Pamala Bruckner as POD beneficiaries; days later Morris and Bruckner signed a bank form adding Bruckner as a joint owner.
- Between January 22, 2015 and Morris’s death (March 12, 2015), Bruckner withdrew $225,077.16 from the account, making large transfers to herself and family members; after Morris’s death Bruckner closed the account and kept remaining funds.
- Wyman (as personal representative) sued Bruckner alleging breach of fiduciary duty and impermissible self‑dealing under the POA; the circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Bruckner, ruling the POA authorized the gifts and that creating the joint account was not an exercise of POA powers.
- Wyman appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether Bruckner was estopped from changing legal theory on appeal, whether the POA clearly authorized self‑dealing, and whether Bruckner owed fiduciary duties in creating/using the joint account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wyman) | Defendant's Argument (Bruckner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Judicial estoppel for changing theory on appeal | Bruckner previously argued POA authorized the transfers; she should be estopped from now saying she acted as joint owner | Bruckner says appellate court may affirm on any legal basis; earlier position was legal theory not factual inconsistency | Not estopped: inconsistent theory was legal, not factual, so judicial estoppel does not apply |
| 2. Waiver of new argument on appeal (joint‑owner defense) | Bruckner failed to raise joint‑owner theory below and thus waived it on appeal | Any legal basis in the record can support affirmance even if not argued below | Court declined to decide because it resolved liability on POA/self‑dealing grounds; left open whether waived |
| 3. Whether POA clearly authorized self‑dealing | POA did not contain "clear and unmistakable" language permitting agent to self‑deal to herself or family; withdrawals violated fiduciary duty | POA’s broad "give or receive as a gift" and general powers authorized the transfers; no "magic" words required | POA did not clearly and unmistakably authorize self‑dealing; transfers to Bruckner and family during Morris’s lifetime breached fiduciary duties |
| 4. Whether joint‑account creation/use imposed fiduciary duties | Bruckner acted as agent and breached duties by becoming joint owner and spending funds; survivorship rights forfeited | Adding Bruckner as joint owner was a bank transaction executed by Morris; may not trigger fiduciary duties (Bronson); tracing/survivorship should control | Remanded: trial court must determine if fiduciary relationship existed when account was created (fact question). Money spent during Morris’s life must be returned to estate; post‑death disposals contingent on fiduciary‑status finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Heitmann v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 883 N.W.2d 506 (S.D. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment and affirmance if any legal basis supports decision)
- Estate of Lien v. Pete Lien & Sons, Inc., 740 N.W.2d 115 (S.D. 2007) (summary judgment appropriate for interpretation of written documents)
- Bienash v. Moller, 721 N.W.2d 431 (S.D. 2006) (power of attorney strictly construed; self‑dealing requires clear and unmistakable authorization)
- Studt v. Black Hills Federal Credit Union, 864 N.W.2d 513 (S.D. 2015) (general gift language in POA did not permit self‑dealing by agent)
- In re Estate of Bronson, 892 N.W.2d 604 (S.D. 2017) (not every act by an attorney‑in‑fact is agency; adding a joint owner may be an amanuensis/bank transaction not creating fiduciary duties)
- In re Estate of Stevenson, 605 N.W.2d 818 (S.D. 2000) (fiduciary must avoid self‑dealing; transactions that favor fiduciary over principal are impermissible)
- Hayes v. Rosenbaum Signs & Outdoor Advert., Inc., 853 N.W.2d 878 (S.D. 2014) (doctrine of judicial estoppel explained)