What legal remedies are available for power of attorney abuse in Mississippi?

Mississippi law provides remedies including voiding unauthorized transfers, requiring the agent to account for all transactions, recovering damages for losses caused by the breach, and removing the agent. Courts may also award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in egregious cases of POA abuse.

Mississippi Court Addresses Power of Attorney Abuse and Fiduciary Duty | Lynch Law

Q: What happened in the Mississippi power of attorney abuse case Titus v. Stelzer?

In Titus v. Stelzer, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that an agent acting under a power of attorney breached his fiduciary duty by secretly conveying the principal's property to his own children. The court held the agent liable for the unauthorized transfers.

In Titus v. Stelzer, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed a chancellor's finding that an agent acting under a power of attorney breached his fiduciary duty by secretly conveying the principal's property to his own children. The case is a cautionary tale about the risks of power-of-attorney abuse and a roadmap for the legal remedies available when an agent puts self-interest above the principal's welfare.^[1]

The Facts

The case involved a father (Titus Sr.) who held a power of attorney for an elderly family member. Using the authority granted by the POA, Titus Sr. conveyed several parcels of real property from the principal to his own children — without the principal's knowledge or consent and without any consideration. The transfers were not disclosed to other family members or to the principal's other advisors. When the transfers came to light, the affected family members filed suit alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The chancellor found that Titus Sr. had breached his fiduciary duty as agent by using the power of attorney for his own benefit rather than for the benefit of the principal. The court set aside the conveyances, imposed a constructive trust on the transferred properties, and ordered the properties returned to the principal's estate. Titus Sr. and his children appealed.

The Court of Appeals' Analysis

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court began with the fundamental principle that an agent under a power of attorney is a fiduciary who owes the principal the highest duty of loyalty, good faith, and fair dealing. This duty requires the agent to act solely in the principal's interest, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to refrain from self-dealing. When an agent uses the POA to transfer the principal's property to the agent or the agent's family members, the transaction is presumptively voidable — and the burden shifts to the agent to prove that the transaction was fair, authorized, and in the principal's interest.^[2]

The court found that Titus Sr. could not meet this burden. The transfers were made without the principal's knowledge, without consideration, and without any legitimate purpose related to the principal's welfare. The court rejected the argument that the POA's broad language — authorizing the agent to "convey" real property — gave the agent carte blanche to transfer property to his own family. A broadly worded POA grants the agent authority to act on the principal's behalf, not authority to benefit the agent at the principal's expense.

The court also affirmed the chancellor's imposition of a constructive trust. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that arises when property has been obtained through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or other unconscionable conduct. By imposing a constructive trust on the transferred properties, the court ensured that the properties would be returned to their rightful owner — the principal or the principal's estate — rather than remaining in the hands of the agent's children.^[3]

The Mississippi Uniform Power of Attorney Act

Mississippi adopted the Uniform Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA) at Miss. Code Ann. § 87-3-101 et seq., which provides a comprehensive statutory framework for powers of attorney. The UPOAA addresses the scope of an agent's authority, the agent's fiduciary duties, and the remedies available when an agent breaches those duties. Under the UPOAA, an agent has a duty to act in accordance with the principal's reasonable expectations, to act in the principal's best interest, and to avoid conflicts of interest. The agent must keep records of all transactions and must not commingle the principal's funds with the agent's own funds.

Importantly, the UPOAA provides that certain extraordinary powers — including the power to make gifts, create or change beneficiary designations, and transfer property to the agent — must be specifically granted in the POA document. A general grant of authority does not include these powers. This provision is designed to prevent exactly the type of abuse alleged in Titus: an agent who uses a broadly worded POA to make self-serving transfers that the principal never authorized.^[4]

Practical Lessons

For families appointing agents under powers of attorney, Titus reinforces the importance of careful agent selection and ongoing monitoring. A POA grants extraordinary authority — the power to manage the principal's finances, sell property, and make binding commitments on the principal's behalf. This authority should be entrusted only to individuals who have demonstrated integrity and who are willing to act in the principal's interest even when doing so conflicts with their own.

For estate planners drafting POA documents, the case underscores the importance of including appropriate limitations and safeguards. The POA should specify the scope of the agent's authority with precision, should require the agent to maintain records and provide accountings to designated family members, and should not grant gifting or self-dealing authority unless there is a specific and documented reason for doing so.

For families who suspect that a POA is being misused, Titus confirms that Mississippi courts will act decisively to remedy POA abuse. The remedies include setting aside unauthorized transactions, imposing constructive trusts, ordering accountings, removing the agent, and awarding damages. The key is to act promptly — the longer the abuse continues undiscovered, the more difficult it becomes to trace and recover the misappropriated assets. If you suspect that a family member's agent is acting improperly, consult with experienced fiduciary litigation counsel to evaluate the situation and determine the appropriate course of action.^[5]

References

^[1] Titus v. Stelzer, No. 2022-CA-01079-COA (Miss. Ct. App. 2024) (affirming chancellor's finding of breach of fiduciary duty by agent under power of attorney; constructive trust imposed on transferred properties).
^[2] See Madden v. Rhodes, 626 So. 2d 608, 616 (Miss. 1993) (fiduciary relationships give rise to a presumption of undue influence; burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove fairness of the transaction).
^[3] See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 55 (constructive trust as remedy for breach of fiduciary duty or fraud in the acquisition of property).
^[4] Miss. Code Ann. § 87-3-113 (UPOAA: agent's fiduciary duties); § 87-3-114 (authority requiring specific grant: gifts, changes to beneficiary designations, transfers to the agent).
^[5] Miss. Code Ann. § 87-3-116 (remedies for POA abuse under the UPOAA: judicial relief, damages, costs, and attorney's fees).