## Facts

- In 1997, Phillip I. Lovell executed a power of attorney (POA) appointing his son, Charles Lovell, as attorney-in-fact; the POA granted broad authority to manage, lease, and sell real property but did not expressly authorize gifts or self-dealing transfers.
- In May 2003, Phillip’s wife, Zada Lovell, quitclaimed her interest in the family farm in Springfield, Vermont, to Phillip.
- The next day, Charles, acting under the POA, executed a quitclaim deed transferring the farm from Phillip to Charles and Hubert Lovell for no consideration.
- Several children and stepchildren, including Duane Amsden, signed a consent statement approving the transfer as in Phillip and Zada’s best interests and contemplating a later family discussion regarding ultimate distribution of the farm.
- Phillip died in June 2003; Zada died in June 2008.
- After the transfer, Charles paid property taxes and funded improvements.
- In 2008, Duane filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking a determination that the 2003 conveyance was invalid under 14 V.S.A. § 3504(e)–(f) (as amended in 2002) and that the farm belonged to Phillip’s estate.

## Issues

1. Whether an attorney-in-fact may transfer the principal’s real property to himself and another for no consideration when the POA does not explicitly authorize gifts, as required by 14 V.S.A. § 3504(e)–(f).
2. Whether the 2002 amendments to 14 V.S.A. § 3504 applied to a transfer executed in 2003 under a POA signed in 1997.
3. Whether laches barred the challenge because the plaintiff sued years after the conveyance and the attorney-in-fact incurred expenses on the property.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Duane Amsden.
- The Court held that the 2003 conveyance was an unauthorized gift/self-dealing transfer because the POA did not explicitly grant authority to make gifts.
- The Court held the 2002 statutory amendments governed the 2003 exercise of POA authority even though the POA was executed earlier.
- The Court rejected laches because the equities did not justify barring review of an unauthorized transfer and the required elements of laches were not established.

## Legal Principles

- An attorney-in-fact may not make gifts of the principal’s property, particularly to the attorney-in-fact, unless the POA explicitly authorizes gifting under 14 V.S.A. § 3504(e)–(f).
- General authority to manage, lease, or sell property does not constitute explicit authority to make gratuitous transfers or self-benefiting conveyances.
- Statutory limits on an agent’s authority apply to acts taken after the statute’s effective date, even if the POA instrument predates the amendments.
- Laches requires unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice; it does not validate a transfer that exceeds statutory and fiduciary limits on an attorney-in-fact’s authority.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld invalidation of a no-consideration transfer of a principal’s farm by an attorney-in-fact to himself and his brother because the POA lacked explicit gifting authority under Vermont law, and the delayed challenge was not barred by laches.


In re Estate of Lovell, 190 Vt. 99, 25 A.3d 560 (2011)