The California Supreme Court rules that a deed signed by a daughter/agent on her father's instructions but outside of his presence, conveying the father's property to her, is a valid conveyance. Estate of Stephens (Cal., No. S095401, July 25, 2002).
In 1989, Austin Stephens executed a durable power of attorney, naming his daughter, Shirley Williams, his attorney-in-fact. By 1990, Mr. Stephens had become blind and relied on Ms. Williams to read documents for him. In 1991, Mr. Stephens decided to make a gift of his home to Ms. Williams, due both to her caring for him and to the departure of his son, Lawrence, at a time when Mr. Stephens felt he needed help. Following preparation of the deed, Mr. Stephens verbally instructed Ms. Williams, in the presence of another, to sign his name to the deed. She executed the deed and had it notarized. Mr. Stephens was not present at the time Ms. Williams signed the deed.
Following Mr. Stephens' death, Lawrence filed a petition to determine title and require transfer of the property to the estate. The trial court declared Ms. Williams the sole owner of Mr. Stephens's property under the 'amanuensis' rule, which provides that where the signing of a grantor's name is done with the grantor's express authority, the signature is deemed to be that of the grantor. The Court of Appeal reversed, rejecting the amanuensis theory because the deed was not signed in Mr. Stephens's presence. The court ruled that since Ms. Williams's written authority was derived from a durable power of attorney, she could not convey the property to herself as a gift.
The Supreme Court of California reverses. The court rules that application of the amanuensis rule is not confined to situations in which an agent signs a contract in the principal's immediate presence. However, the court acknowledges that a heightened level of judicial scrutiny applies when, as in this case, an amanuensis is an interested party to the deed. In such cases, the court rules that the 'interested amanuensis' bears the burden of showing that his or her signing of the grantor's name was not the product of fraud, duress, or undue influence. The court holds that here Ms. Williams has overcome the presumption that her signing of her father's name was invalid.
To download the full text of this decision in Word format, click on the following link: https://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S095401.DOC.
To download it in PDF format, click on: https://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S095401.PDF.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
