Power of attorney; Fiduciary duty; Attorney-in-fact; In re Susser Estate; Breach of fiduciary duty; Statute of limitations; Prentis Family Found v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Inst; Conversion; MCL 600.2919a; Magley v M&W Inc; Evidentiary issues; Hearsay; MRE 802; Invited error; In re Koch Estate; Collateral estoppel; Keywell & Rosenfeld v Bithell

The court held that the trial court did not err after a bench trial in finding defendant liable for breach of fiduciary duty and conversion while acting under decedent’s durable power of attorney. Decedent appointed defendant as durable power of attorney, but the document barred gifts, creating joint assets with defendant, and compensation. Plaintiff, as personal representative of decedent’s estate, sued after disputed withdrawals, credit-card charges, account changes, and other transactions. The trial court entered judgment for plaintiff on breach of fiduciary duty and conversion. On appeal, the court first deemed several pro se claims abandoned and held the validity of the power of attorney was moot because the judgment assumed defendant’s authority rather than invalidated it. The court held that defendant breached her fiduciary duty because an attorney-in-fact owes a fiduciary duty, and defendant opened a new account in her own name using decedent’s funds despite the power of attorney stating she was “not authorized” to create a joint account or asset with herself. The court also pointed to defendant endorsing a Social Security check made out to decedent and plaintiff, making gifts for car insurance and Home Depot use, and the evidence linking luxury handbag purchases to defendant’s PO box and her daughter’s email. The court further held that conversion was established because defendant wrongfully exerted “domain over decedent’s personal property inconsistent with her rights as power of attorney” through the credit-card and account conduct. It rejected defendant’s speedy-trial argument because this was a civil case, deferred to the trial court’s evidentiary and credibility rulings, and rejected her forum-shopping claim because the deed issue “was not actually relitigated.” Affirmed.