In Re Succession of Aucoin

Louisiana Court of Appeal
771 So.2d 286, 2000 WL 1673433 (2000)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana law, a mandate (power of attorney) conferring authority to alienate immovable property must be express; specifically, the power to make inter vivos donations must be explicitly granted and cannot be inferred from general terms like "transfer" or "convey."

Facts:

In July 1992, Ruby Aucoin and her husband Buford Aucoin executed a general power of attorney.
The document authorized Buford to manage Ruby's affairs, specifically granting him the power to "sell, transfer, convey... and to receive the price thereof."
On March 25, 1996, Buford executed an act of donation transferring the couple's family home to their son, Spencer, and his wife, Elaine.
Buford signed the donation document on his own behalf and on behalf of Ruby, acting as her agent under the power of attorney.
Ruby Aucoin died shortly thereafter in April 1996, followed by Buford in October 1996.
The couple's daughter, Sharon Cain, sought to recover the family home for the parents' estate, disputing the validity of the transfer.

Procedural Posture:

Sharon Cain, as provisional administratrix, filed a petition in the succession proceeding to annul the donation of the family home.
Sharon filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the trial court requesting the donation be rescinded.
The trial court granted the motion, nullifying the donation and ordering the property returned to the succession.
Spencer and Elaine Aucoin appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a general power of attorney granting an agent the authority to "sell, transfer, and convey" immovable property and "receive the price thereof" effectively authorize the agent to donate the principal's property to a third party?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Foil

No, a general power of attorney does not authorize a donation unless that power is expressly stated. The court reasoned that Louisiana Civil Code (specifically art. 2997) lists specific activities, including inter vivos donations, that require express authority. While the appellants argued that "transfer" and "convey" could imply a gift, the court rejected utilizing inferences to establish authority where the law requires it to be express. Furthermore, the power of attorney linked the power to transfer with the obligation to "receive the price thereof," suggesting an exchange for value rather than a gratuitous gift.

Concurring - Judge Fitzsimmons

No, the document failed to authorize the donation because of conflicting language. Judge Fitzsimmons agreed with the outcome but noted that while "transfer" and "convey" are broad terms that might theoretically encompass a gift, the specific inclusion of the phrase "to receive the price thereof" in the contract negated that interpretation. Since a donation involves no price, the specific language used by the principals confirmed they did not intend to grant the power to donate gratuitously.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict interpretation of agency law regarding the gratuitous disposal of property. By refusing to allow broad synonyms like "transfer" to cover donations, the court protects principals from having their assets given away by agents without clear, specific consent. It establishes that when a statute requires "express" authority, courts will not rely on dictionary definitions or implications to expand an agent's powers, particularly regarding real estate transactions.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Succession of Aucoin (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"