## Facts

- Elizabeth Lynes Fambrough, a childless widow with no local relatives, relied on her neighbor and close friend, Spero John Krevatas, for assistance during hospitalization and convalescent care.
- In 1982, Fambrough executed (1) a will leaving Krevatas $20,000, her automobile, and an option to purchase her home at fair market value, with the residue to her husband’s nieces; and (2) a power of attorney that was not then delivered to Krevatas.
- On March 27, 1985, Krevatas obtained the power of attorney from Fambrough’s lawyer; Fambrough remained competent until her death on April 26, 1985, and did not execute a new will or codicil.
- In early April 1985, while hospitalized, Fambrough signed paperwork changing a checking account to a joint survivorship account in the names of herself, a niece, and Krevatas; historically the balance had been between $3,000 and $6,000.
- Using the power of attorney, Krevatas transferred large sums from Fambrough’s non-survivorship accounts into that joint checking account, increasing the balance to over $120,000 by the date of death.
- Using the power of attorney, Krevatas also converted Fambrough’s individual certificates of deposit (including $10,000 and $15,000 CDs) into joint survivorship accounts in the names of Fambrough, a niece, and Krevatas.
- Fambrough documented certain gifts during her final weeks (including furniture to Krevatas), but there was no evidence she directed or participated in the large transfers or the creation of survivorship interests in the CDs.
- The personal representative of Fambrough’s estate sued, and after a bench trial the circuit court entered a $77,706.56 judgment against Krevatas and divested him of claimed survivorship interests, finding the transfers were unauthorized and not for Fambrough’s benefit.

## Issues

1. Whether a general power of attorney authorized the attorney-in-fact to transfer the principal’s assets into joint survivorship accounts benefiting the agent, effectively making substantial gifts to himself.
2. Whether creating and funding survivorship accounts for the agent’s benefit, without evidence of the principal’s direction or donative intent, constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
3. Whether the trial court’s monetary relief and forfeiture of survivorship interests exceeded what the evidence and law permitted.

## Decision

- The First District Court of Appeal affirmed the determination that Krevatas exceeded his authority and breached fiduciary duties by using the power of attorney to create and fund survivorship interests benefiting himself without proof of Fambrough’s direction or intent.
- The court held that the power of attorney did not authorize the agent to restructure the principal’s estate plan through unilateral transfers into survivorship accounts.
- The court reversed in part as to the amount of the monetary judgment, modifying the scope of monetary relief and remanding for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A power of attorney is strictly construed; an agent’s authority extends only to powers specifically granted in the instrument.
- General authority to manage assets does not, without clear authorization, include the power to make gifts to the agent or to create joint survivorship interests that function as donative transfers.
- An attorney-in-fact is a fiduciary and may not engage in self-dealing transactions that benefit the agent unless the instrument clearly permits it and the principal’s intent to confer the benefit is clearly shown.
- When an agent uses a power of attorney to divert significant assets into survivorship accounts benefiting the agent without the principal’s participation or direction, courts may treat the transactions as unauthorized and order restitution to the estate, subject to proper calculation of amounts.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that an attorney-in-fact cannot use a generally worded power of attorney to make substantial self-benefiting transfers by creating and funding joint survivorship accounts absent clear authority and clear evidence of the principal’s intent; the finding of breach and lack of authority was largely upheld, but the monetary award was modified on partial reversal.


Krevatas v. Wright, 518 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1988)