## Facts

- Howard R. Bankerd and his wife owned a Montgomery County home as tenants by the entireties.
- In 1966, Mrs. Bankerd left the home; Howard remained. In 1968, Howard left Maryland and lived in western states for about twelve years.
- During Howard’s absence, he made no payments for the mortgage, taxes, or maintenance; Mrs. Bankerd continuously occupied the property.
- Howard executed a power of attorney naming Arthur V. King as agent; in 1975, Howard executed an updated power of attorney dated October 30, 1975.
- The power of attorney authorized King to “convey, grant, bargain and/or sell” the property on terms the agent deemed best and to execute deeds and do acts “necessary” to transfer the property.
- In 1977, Mrs. Bankerd asked King to transfer Howard’s interest to her so she could sell or mortgage the property.
- King attempted unsuccessfully to contact Howard and believed Howard had abandoned the property and might be deceased.
- On June 21, 1978, King executed a deed conveying Howard’s entire interest to Mrs. Bankerd without consideration.
- Mrs. Bankerd later sold the property to a third party for $62,500; Howard received no proceeds.
- In 1981, Howard sued King for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty; the circuit court granted summary judgment for Howard and awarded damages, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a power of attorney authorizing an agent to “convey, grant, bargain and/or sell” the principal’s real property empowers the agent to make a gratuitous transfer without consideration to the principal.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the transfer was gratuitous and the instrument contained no express gift authority.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for Howard Bankerd.
- The court held that the power of attorney did not authorize a gratuitous conveyance of the principal’s property.
- Because the deed transferred the principal’s interest without consideration and without authority to make gifts, the agent exceeded his authority and breached fiduciary duties.

## Legal Principles

- Powers of attorney are strictly construed and confer only powers that are clearly delineated.
- Authority to make gifts of the principal’s property is not inferred from general authority to convey or sell because gratuitous transfers are potentially harmful to the principal’s interests.
- An attorney-in-fact owes fiduciary duties to act for the principal’s benefit and may not dispose of the principal’s property by gift absent authorization.
- A gratuitous transfer is permitted only if gift authority is (1) expressly granted, (2) necessarily implied from granted powers, or (3) clearly intended by the principal as shown by surrounding facts and circumstances.
- Broad clauses permitting acts “necessary” to transfer property do not necessarily imply authority to make gifts, because gifts are not necessary to effect a sale or ordinary transfer for value.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the instrument’s language, the gratuitous nature of the transfer, and the surrounding circumstances present no genuine dispute of material fact and the lack of gift authority is determinable as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that general authority in a power of attorney to convey or sell real property does not include authority to transfer the principal’s interest gratuitously; absent clear gift authority, an agent who makes such a transfer exceeds the agency and breaches fiduciary duties, supporting summary judgment for the principal.


King v. Bankerd, 303 Md. 98, 492 A.2d 608 (1985)