## Facts

- Ethel Mae Schull was hospitalized with terminal cancer in March 1975.
- While hospitalized, she executed a power of attorney appointing her stepson, Schull, as attorney-in-fact.
- Schull withdrew and disbursed approximately $25,001.64 from the decedent’s bank accounts both before and after her death the next month.
- The decedent’s will named her sister, Long, as executrix and primary beneficiary.
- Long, on behalf of the estate, sued Schull and his wife to recover the withdrawn funds.
- Defendants claimed the withdrawals were an inter vivos gift from the decedent.
- The trial court found defendants did not prove donative intent and concluded only about $800 of the expenditures were proper under the power of attorney; the remainder was unauthorized.
- Judgment entered for the estate for the improperly withdrawn amount, and defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants established, as a matter of law, that the decedent made a valid inter vivos gift of the disputed funds to them.
2. Whether the trial court clearly erred in finding Schull’s withdrawals and expenditures exceeded the authority granted by the power of attorney.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the estate in a per curiam decision.
- The court held the existence of an inter vivos gift (including donative intent) was a factual matter, and the trial court’s finding of no gift was not clearly erroneous.
- The court held defendants failed to meet their burden to prove a gift against an estate by clear and satisfactory proof.
- The court upheld the conclusion that Schull’s conduct went beyond the authority conferred by the power of attorney, requiring restitution to the estate (less the small amount found properly expended).

## Legal Principles

- When an estate is a party and a gift is asserted against the estate, the claimant bears the burden to prove the gift by clear and satisfactory proof.
- Donative intent is ordinarily a question of fact committed to the trier of fact, and appellate review of such findings is for clear error.
- A power of attorney is an agency instrument that must be exercised within its granted authority and for the principal’s benefit; it does not, without explicit authorization, permit substantial self-dealing transfers to the agent.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed recovery by the estate because defendants did not prove an inter vivos gift under the heightened evidentiary standard applicable to claims against estates, and the attorney-in-fact’s withdrawals were found to exceed the scope of authority under the power of attorney.


Long v. Schull, 184 Conn. 252, 439 A.2d 975 (Conn. 1981)