Wednesday, April 22, 2026
Page 1
Power of Attorney Did Not Justify Holder Naming Himself as Beneficiary—C.A.
Opinion Says It Doesn’t Matter if He Intended to Disburse Funds to Others
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Westlake Village lawyer whose mother, now deceased, conferred on him a durable power of attorney and who, after she became incapacitated, designated himself sole beneficiary of a $1.9 million asset, has failed to persuade Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal that his action was valid because he intended, as evidenced by his conduct, to take charge of the funds only to have them distributed to the intended recipients.
Whatever the intent was on the part of appellant Robert T. Leonard, Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth Yegan said, in an unpublished opinion filed Monday, does not matter because the durable power of attorney (“POA”), executed on Jan. 19, 2016, did not expressly confer such authority as was exercised.
The POA’s “durable” nature means it remained in effect even after the onset of the mother’s incapacity a few years later, Yegan recited.
The asset in question was the mother’s individual retirement account (“IRA”). Leonard—who bills himself on his office website as “California’s Premier Tax Controversy Attorney”—petitioned the Ventura Superior Court to confirm the designation of himself as beneficiary and to order Charles Schwab, the IRA custodian, to distribute the funds not to him, but to six of the decedent’s grandchildren.
Provisions of Trust
Under an April 28, 2016 amendment by the mother to her trust, Robert Leonard and a brother of his, Encino attorney William Scott Leonard, were each to receive $50,000, with the remainder going to their children. A third son, Jeffrey Michael Leonard, along with his child, were expressly disinherited.
Under Yegan’s opinion, the prospect looms that under further Superior Court proceedings, the disinherited parties might receive funds from the IRA account.
Yegan concluded that Ventura Superior Court Judge Gilbert A. Romero correctly denied the petition. The POA, he declared, did not empower Robert Leonard to designate himself as beneficiary of the IRA.
In his ruling, Romero said:
“The gift of 100% of the IRA to Petitioner was inconsistent with the principal’s prior pattern of gift-making. Because the gift to Petitioner was inconsistent with the principal’s prior pattern of gift-making, the POA did not grant Petitioner the authority to make the gift.”
Appellant’s Contention
Attorney Brandon P. Johnson of the Camarillo firm of Staker Johnson Law Corporation argued in Robert Leonard’s opening brief on appeal that Romero’s ruling “was based on the mischaracterization of Robert’s designation of himself as beneficiary of the ERA as a gift, resulting in an improper application of the POA terms and the law.”
Johnson explained:
“At the time of designation, Robert was unaware of the specific trust beneficiaries and named himself to ensure the account could be properly managed and distributed upon his mother’s death. His actions were consistent with his fiduciary duties—not self-interest—and were taken to fulfill his mother’s estate planning goals. Acting under his authority as attorney-in-fact, Robert intended to distribute the IRA to his mother’s intended beneficiaries, not to himself, following determination of such beneficiaries. The probate court erred in characterizing the designation as a gift to Robert rather than as an act in furtherance of his fiduciary duty under the POA.
“Robert has a continuing ethical obligation to carry out his mother’s intentions as expressed in her estate plan. Confirming his designation is not about personal entitlement, but about ensuring the IRA proceeds reach those his mother chose—six of her grandchildren—as part of her deliberate estate plan.”
Yegan’s Opinion
Yegan wrote that it is unnecessary to “try to ascertain Robert’s intent in designating himself as sole beneficiary” of the IRA, expressing agreement with the stance taken in the respondents’ brief on behalf of the lawyer’s brothers. That brief—signed by Encino attorney Nancy Reinhardt, Westwood practitioner Daniel M. Hayes, and Gerald M. Serlin and Wendy S. Albers of the Woodland Hills firm of Benedon & Serlin—says:
“[T]he POA did not provide Robert with the authority to designate 100% of over $ 1.8 million in proceeds to himself. If the designation was not a valid exercise of Robert’s authority under the POA, his after-the-fact explanation for the designation (which in and of itself is inconsistent and transparently self-serving) does not validate an otherwise invalid designation. In other words, Robert’s purported reason for the beneficiary designation is completely irrelevant if he did not have the express authority to do what he did in the first place. And he did not.”
Agreeing that he didn’t, the justice pointed to Probate Code §4264 which provides, with emphasis added by Yegan:
“An attorney-in-fact under a power of attorney may perform any of the following acts on behalf of the principal...only if the power of attorney expressly grants that authority to the attorney-in-fact: ...[¶] (c) Make...a gift of the principal’s property in trust or otherwise....[¶] (f) Designate or change the designation of beneficiaries to receive any property, benefit, or contract right on the principal’s death.”
Robert Leonard acknowledges, he noted, that there was no express grant of authority to him.
It cannot be assumed, Yegan said, that the mother “intended the assets of her IRA to be distributed in the same manner as the assets of her trust.” He cited authority for the proposition that an IRA is a “‘nonprobate’ asset” that does not pass under the terms of a will or trust.
The case is Estate of Leonard, B342888.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company