¹ Prior to August 18, 2008, Howard F. Miller and Marguerite E. Miller owned, as husband and wife, a parcel of real estate, consisting of approximately 135 acres in Dickinson Township, Cumberland County, commonly referred to as 134 N. Dickinson School Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on which they had their family homestead (“Miller Family Homestead”).

² By Deed dated August 18, 2008, Howard F. Miller (“Father”) and Marguerite E. Miller (“Mother”) transferred the Miller J-S58020-17 Family Homestead to themselves and to their four children, Geoffrey G. Miller (“Geoff”); Huntley H. Miller (“Chet”); Renee E. Andwood (“Renee”) and Karen M. Blackbird (“Karen”) as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

³ The August 18, 2008 Deed was signed by Geoff on behalf of Father and by Chet on behalf of Mother, both as Powers of Attorneys (“POAs”) for each respective Grantor.

⁴ On March 26, 2009, Father executed a new Power of Attorney (“POA”) prepared by Hazen Elder Law, whereby Father appointed Geoff, Chet and Karen [as] his POAs to act “jointly or individually” as his co-agents.

⁵ On November 9, 2011, Father executed another Power of Attorney prepared by Hazen Elder Law, naming all four (4) siblings as co-agents.

⁶ Mother passed away on June 25, 2011.

⁷ At the time that Mother passed away, Father and Mother had joint (husband and wife) accounts at both M&T Bank and Citizens Bank. M&T Bank had a money market account. Citizens Bank had checking, savings and Certificates of Deposit.

⁸ Upon Mother’s death, Father received and [sic] annuity worth approximately $187,000.00, for which Geoff, as Father’s POA, accepted the death benefit from Trans America Insurance Company, opened an account at M&T Bank in Father’s name only and deposited the policy proceeds into said account, which was in Father’s name even at the time of his death.

⁹ Father died on August 21, 2014 leaving a Will dated May 9, 2009.... 10. Father’s May 9, 2009 Will was admitted to probate on September 3, 2014 and Geoff and Chet were granted Letters Testamentary on that same date. 11. At the time of Father’s death, on August 21, 2014, the value of the account funded with Mother’s annuity was $188,419.63, which amount was transferred on September - 10 - J-S58020-17 Orphans’ Court Supplemental Opinion, 5/3/17, at 2. In sum, the orphans’ court concluded that the Farm Account was not a legally created joint account; therefore, it declined to apply the MPAA and Novosielski. Asserting that creation of the Farm Account was authorized under Father’s 2011 power of attorney (“the 2011 POA”), the brothers argue that the orphans’ court erred in failing to begin its analysis with consideration of the MPAA, “if for no other reason, than to establish who bore the burden of proving” ownership of the Farm Account and “by what standard.” The Brothers’ Brief at 28. According to the brothers, the MPAA creates a presumption of survivorship in their favor that “can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence of contrary intent. The burden of establishing a contrary intent is on the party who opposes the presumption of survivorship.” Id. at 29 (citing In re Estate of Meyers, 642 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 1994)). The brothers complain that the orphans’ court “never discussed the burden of proof required by the MPAA and, therefore, never analyzed whether the [s]isters had met the burden that was undoubtedly theirs according to the Statute….” Id. at 30. In response, the sisters argue that the orphans’ court properly began its analysis by examining the scope of powers Father granted his agents under the 2011 POA to determine if the Farm Account was legally created. The Sisters’ Brief at 9. The sisters assert that, in analyzing the 2011 POA, the orphans’ court properly found that the brothers acted without authority - 11 - J-S58020-17 in opening the Farm account. Id. at 13–17. Thus, the sisters contend that “a joint account was never created and the Orphans’ Court correctly concluded that consideration of the MPAA and Novosielski was inapplicable.” Id. at 17. Upon review of the certified record, the MPAA, and Novosielski, we discern no error in the orphans’ court’s analytical starting point. Common sense dictates that ownership of a joint account is dependent on the legitimate creation of a joint account. Indeed, application of the MPAA presumes a legitimately created joint account. See Novosielski, 992 A.2d at 105–106 (explaining that a legitimately created joint account carries the statutory presumption of survivorship unless negated by the form of the account); see also In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374, 380 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Novosielski). Also, Novosielski concerned the ownership of a legitimately created joint account, not the validity of a joint account. The legitimate creation of the Farm Account depended on the scope of powers authorized by the 2011 POA. Thus, we approve of the orphans’ court first reviewing the 2011 POA to determine if the brothers had authority thereunder to open the Farm Account. In light of the orphans’ court’s ruling that the Farm Account was not a legitimately created joint account, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the orphans’ court’s initial rejection of the brothers’ MPAA- and Novosielski-based arguments. - 12 - J-S58020-17 The brothers also attack—as “further reversible error”—the orphans’ court’s principal holding that the initial transfer of funds into the Farm Account was invalid under the 2011 POA. The Brothers’ Brief at 31–53. According to the brothers, they had authority under the 2011 POA to open the Farm Account, and therefore they own it by operation of the MPAA. Id. at 55. Noting that powers of attorney are to be strictly construed, the orphans’ court held as follows: In the present case, Section 5 of the [POA] states the siblings as co-agents have the power to “open and close checking, savings, transaction or other deposit accounts in Father’s name.” Exhibit C to Joint Stipulations, Section 5. Section 22 of the [POA] states that “my Agents must act jointly, not individually, for all gifting.” Exhibit C to Joint Stipulations, Section 22 (emphasis in original). Section 23 further states that “my Agent and the donee of the gift shall be responsible as equity and justice may require to the extent that a gift made by my agent is inconsistent with my directions and planning of my probable intent with respect to the disposition of my estate.” Id. Finally, Section 22 waives the general requirement that assets may not be commingled between the principal and co-agent, by stating “I specifically and expressly waive any requirements in effect now and in the future to have my assets kept separate from my Agent’s assets.” Id. (Emphasis in original). We agree with Karen and Renee that Geoff and Chet acted without legal authority under the [2011 POA] to open the Farm Account as a joint tenancy with right of survivorship. Ultimately, we conclude that it does not matter for purposes of this case whether or not the transfer of funds was a gift or not. If it was a gift, then all four siblings were required to agree to the transfer. Geoff and Chet contend that Karen and Renee did not dispute the opening of the account at that time and later received gifts from the account, thereby implicitly agreeing. However, neither the receipt of money from the account nor lack of protest does - 13 - J-S58020-17 not indicate acquiescence in this case. There are many reasons why Karen and Renee may not have objected at the time of the account’s creation. For example, they may not have understood the implications of the joint tenancy or that Father intended the transfer to be a gift and not merely a means to keep Father’s care expenses separate from farm expenses. The [2011 POA] states that the siblings must unanimously agree to a transaction involving a gift. The burden therefore is on Geoff and Chet to show that there was unanimous agreement, which, given Karen and Renee’s objections, is not the case involving the Farm Account. The transfer must fail if it is considered a gift due to lack of unanimous consent. If the transfer was not a gift, then the money was required to be kept separate as the [2011 POA] does not permit the commingling of assets between Father and the siblings, with the sole exception of a gift. The waiver of the commingling requirement is contained within Section 22 of the [2011 POA], which concerns gifts, but is not mentioned elsewhere. Moreover, the acknowledgement of the [2011 POA] signed by each sibling states that “I shall keep the assets of the principal separate from my assets (except where a gift of assets may be titled jointly in the names of Principal and Agent).” Exhibit C to [Stipulated Facts], Acknowledgement (emphasis added). The only reasonable interpretation of these two provisions, read together to give effect to both, is that the waiver is limited to gifts and is inapplicable to other types of transactions. Father may have wished to give the money to Geoff and Chet so that they could continue operating the farm upon Father’s death. If this was in fact true, then Father should have amended his will to reflect this intent. If the intention was to separate farm expenses and revenue from Father’s day-to-day care expenses, then the account should have been created in just Father’s name. In that event, the siblings, with the [2011 POA], would have had the power to draw upon these funds as needed pursuant to Section 5 of the [2011 POA]. The clearest evidence of Father’s intent is that he wanted all four siblings to agree as to the disposition of his estate, which was not done with the Farm Account. The establishment of the Farm Account must fail, even if it is not considered a gift, as an improper commingling of assets, and not reflective of Father’s intent. Consequently, we conclude that the establishment of the Farm Account was done without authorization under the [2011 - 14 - J-S58020-17 POA], and therefore the transfer was invalid. The money in the account should properly be considered as part of Father’s estate and should not have transferred to Geoff and Chet as joint tenants with the right of survivorship upon Father’s death. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/19/17, at 5–6, 7. In challenging the orphans’ court’s conclusion, the brothers raise multiple arguments. They complain that the orphans’ court did not consider whether the initial $100,000.00 deposit into the Farm Account was an inter vivos gift. The Brothers’ Brief at 51. The brothers further argue that: the 2011 POA expressly granted very broad powers to Father’s Co-Agents to “act jointly or individually. . .to transact all my business and to manage all my affairs as completely as . . . I myself might do, if personally present, including but not limited to, exercising the following powers contained in this document. That general grant of power was further expounded upon by [Father] in paragraph 27 of the 2011 POA, which provides in pertinent part, “The enumeration of the specific powers conferred herein shall not be deemed to exclude herein any other power, it being my purpose and intent to give my Agent power to do any and all things on my behalf as I could do myself”. Obviously, Father could have opened the Farm Account himself. Id. at 32 (emphasis and citations omitted). Additionally, the brothers point out that only the “gifting” provision of the 2011 POA requires all four co- agents to act jointly. Id. They emphasize that the orphans’ court “discussed none of the broad grants of power given by [Father],” which “violates the principle that ‘strict construction of powers of attorney does not militate against the existence of broad discretionary powers.’” Id. at 33 (citing Nuzum v. Spriggs, 55 A.2d 402 (Pa. 1947)). - 15 - J-S58020-17 The brothers also claim that the orphans’ court failed to consider additional provisions of the 2011 POA as determinative of Geoff’s authority to open the Farm Account. The Brothers’ Brief at 33–35 (citing ¶ 27, Conflicts of Interest and Waiver of Confidentiality; ¶ 14, Execution of Documents; ¶ 16, Receipts and Approvals of Accounts; and ¶ 20, Designate Beneficiaries). Moreover, the brothers contend, the orphans’ court “improperly amended the language of the [2011] POA,” by including a requirement that “a bank account could be opened ONLY in [Father’s] name.” Id. at 35.4 Furthermore, the brothers challenge the orphans’ court’s reasoning that “the establishment of the Farm Account must fail, even if it is not considered a gift, as an improper commingling of assets and not reflective of Father’s intent.” Id. at 41. Relying on Novosielski and the stipulated facts, the brothers contend that Father’s testamentary intent was fulfilled in that (1) the bulk of Father’s estate was distributed prior to his death by gifting and deeding the family homestead to the siblings, and (2) the residuary of Father’s estate was distributed to the siblings pursuant to his will shortly after his death. “But, like the decedent in Novosielski, [Father] was certainly entitled to decide that the Farm Account should go to Geoff ____________________________________________ 4 We note that, in the remainder of the brothers’ arguments, they discuss the MPAA and other factors related to ownership of the Farm Account, not their authority under the 2011 POA to open the account. The Brothers’ Brief at 36–41. Thus, that discussion is not germane to the issue at hand. - 16 - J-S58020-17 and Chet upon his death, as they had operated the family Farming Operation with him for many years.” Id. at 50. In contrast, the sisters start with the premise that the initial $100,000.00 deposit was a gift and a commingling of funds. The Sisters’ Brief at 11, 13. They rely on the “very specific, consistent limiting language” of the 2011 POA in support of their position that “there is no authorization in the [2011 POA] for the titling of assets jointly in the name of Principal and Agent.” Id. at 13. The sisters argue that Geoff was not authorized to open the Farm Account because he “acted individually and not jointly with the other agents,” in violation of the gifting provision. Id. at 14 (citing 2011 POA, 11/9/11, at ¶ 22). The sisters also urge that the Farm Account is inconsistent with Father’s “probable intent with respect to the disposition of his estate,” because, “[i]n all matters he treated all four of his children equally.” Id. at 14–15 (internal quotation marks and original brackets omitted). Lastly, the sisters argue that Paragraph 5 of the 2011 POA “did not give authority to Geoff and Chet to open the Farm Account. [Paragraph 5] authorizes an agent to open an account ‘in my name.’ It does not authorize the opening of an account in [Father’s] name with others....” Id. at 16–17. Upon review, we conclude that the brothers’ arguments warrant relief. The orphans’ court proposed that the initial $100,000 deposit would be invalid as a gift to the brothers. However, as the brothers observe, the - 17 - J-S58020-17 orphans’ court conducted no analysis regarding the elements of an inter vivos gift.5 The Brothers’ Brief at 51–54; Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/19/17, at 4–7. Moreover, the record provides no basis for invalidating the Farm Account under the gifting provision of the 2011 POA. The stipulated facts and supporting documentation indicate the following: Father and Geoff had farmed the Miller Homestead together since 1997, and Chet joined them in 2009. Stipulated Facts, 12/30/16, at ¶¶ 12, 13. After Mother passed and while Father was residing with Karen in Elizabethtown, Geoff opened the Farm Account as Father’s agent, in Father’s name, with Father’s funds. Id. at ¶¶ 16, 18, 22, and Exhibit G. The Farm Account was opened “for the Farming Operation.” Id. at ¶ 18. Father gifted the bulk of his personal assets equally to his four children on November 1, 2011, and in 2013 and 2014; those assets included the Miller Homestead and funds in Father’s Citizens Bank Account. Id. at ¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and Exhibits I, K, and M. Moreover, as co-executors, the brothers made ____________________________________________ 5 We have explained that: [a] valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance. There must be evidence of an intention to make a gift accompanied by delivery, actual or constructive, of a nature sufficient not only to divest the donor of all dominion over the property, but to invest the donee with complete control. In re Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372, 386 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 130 A.3d 1291 (Pa. 2015) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). - 18 - J-S58020-17 several distributions from Father’s estate to the siblings. Id. at ¶ 35. This evidence gives rise to a reasonable inference that Father distributed the bulk of his assets equally to his children through gifting and his will, but intended the brothers to use the Farm Account after his death for maintaining and continuing the family business they had been operating with Father for years. Next, we address the orphans’ court’s implicit suggestion that the 2011 POA restricted the type of bank account Father’s agent could open. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has instructed: [P]owers of attorney are strictly construed and the grant of special powers is not to be enlarged unless this is clearly intended. Nevertheless, the rule of strict construction will not be allowed to defeat the very purpose of the agency, and where the agent has authority to exercise discretion his exercise thereof will bind the principal. Estate of Reifsneider, 610 A.2d 958, 960 (Pa. 1992) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted). Here, the 2011 POA specifically authorized Father’s agent to act individually in opening a bank account in Father’s name and to do: all other acts or things whatsoever, and to exercise all other powers on my behalf, whether or not referred to herein, as fully as though herein specifically expressed, which in the sole discretion of my Agent may be deemed advisable to be done for me and in my name, as fully and completely as I might or could do personally, giving and granting to my Agent for that purpose full and complete power and authority to have, use and take all lawful means in my name for the purposes aforesaid. The enumeration of the specific powers conferred herein shall not be deemed to exclude herein any other power, it being my purpose and intent to give - 19 - J-S58020-17 my Agent power to do any and all things on my behalf as fully as I could do myself. The descriptive headings of this general power of attorney are inserted for convenience only and shall not be deemed to affect the meaning or construction of any of the provision [sic] hereof or to limit in any way the construction thereof in the broadest possible manner. 2011 POA, 11/9/11, at Preamble and ¶¶ 5, 27 (emphases supplied). Although the authority to open a joint bank account with right of survivorship was not referred to in the 2011 POA, Paragraph 27 gave Geoff, in his “sole discretion” as agent, “full and complete power and authority” to act on Father’s behalf “as fully and completely as [Father] might or could do personally.” 2011 POA, 11/9/11, at ¶ 27. Father might have or could have personally opened a joint account with right of survivorship in the brothers to assist them in continuing the family business after Father’s death. Thus, the orphans’ court’s limited construction was erroneous because it disregarded the broad scope of powers set forth in the 2011 POA, as well as the grant of sole discretion, the disclaimer about specific powers, and Father’s expressed intention that the 2011 POA be construed in the broadest possible manner. Id. With limited analysis, the orphans’ court determined that creation of the Farm Account resulted in an unauthorized commingling of funds. Orphans’ Court Opinion, 1/19/17, at 5–7. Again, legal authority and the record at hand provide no support for this finding. The MPAA provides that “[a] joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to - 20 - J-S58020-17 the sum on deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.” 20 Pa.C.S.§ 6303(a). Our Supreme Court has explained: The theory behind the statute is that of ownership of the accounts attributable to the individual’s respective deposits and withdrawals; “the right of survivorship which attaches unless negated by the form of the account really is a right to the values theretofore owned by another which the survivor receives for the first time at the death of the owner. That is to say, the account operates as a valid disposition at death rather than as a present joint tenancy.” Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d at 379 (quoting Novosielski, 992 A.2d at 105). Moreover: [l]ike other testamentary devices, creation of a joint account, without more, accomplishes no present transfer of title to property. If ... one person deposits all sums in the joint account, this arrangement contemplates transfer of title to those funds to the other person or persons named on the account upon the death of the depositor. Moreover, the creator of a joint account, like the maker of a will and unlike the giver of a gift, may change his or her mind prior to death. Novosielski, 992 A.2d at 102 (quoting Deutsch, Larrimore & Farnish, P.C. v. Johnson, 848 A.2d 137, 143–144 (Pa. 2004)) (emphasis supplied). Here, the siblings stipulated, “In February 2012, Geoff as father’s POA, took $70,000.00 from [Father’s] maturing CDs and $30,000.00 from Father’s Citizens Bank account and opened an account at M&T Bank for the Farming Operation (“Farm Account”).” Stipulated Facts, 12/30/16, at ¶ 18. Nowhere in the stipulated facts do the parties mention that the brothers deposited their own funds into the Farm Account or used the Farm Account for personal reasons; rather, the Farm Account was opened and used to - 21 - J-S58020-17 continue the operation of the family farming business. Id. at ¶ 18 and Exhibit J. Moreover, any funds withdrawn from the Farm Account and deposited into the brothers’ personal accounts were gifts from Father during his lifetime, effectuated by Geoff and Karen as his agents. Id. at ¶¶ 27, 28, and Exhibit I. Because the initial deposit was comprised solely of Father’s funds and there is no evidence of other funds being deposited into the Farm Account, the brothers had no ownership interest in the Farm Account during Father’s lifetime. Novosielski, 992 A.2d at 102; Deutsch, 848 A.2d 143– 144. Accordingly, the orphans’ court erred in finding that the Farm Account was commingled funds. Lastly, the orphans’ court determined that the Farm Account was not reflective of Father’s intent. Yet, the siblings stipulated: 15. Revenues from the Farming Operation were historically deposited into Father’s and Mother’s joint checking account at Citizens Bank and Farming Operation expenses were historically paid from the same account, with Father and Mother itemizing the Farm Operation as Schedule “F” on their personal income tax returns. * * * 17. Father’s Citizens Bank account was the account into which Father’s Social Security and retirement were automatically deposited monthly. 18. In February 2012, Geoff as Father’s POA, took $70,000.00 from the mature CDs and $30,000.00 from Father’s Citizens Bank account and opened an account at M&T Bank for the Farming Operation (“Farm Account”). * * * - 22 - J-S58020-17 28. In 2013 and 2014, Father, through Geoff, gifted to Geoff, Chet, Karen and Renee gifts from the Farm Account, rather than from the Citizens Bank Account to avoid depleting the Citizen’s Bank account from which expenses for Father’s care were being paid. . . . Stipulated Facts, 12/30/16, at ¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 28. These facts indicate that the Farm Account was created to support the Farming Operation, subsidize Father’s gifting, and insulate Father’s Citizens Bank account, which was used for his personal care. Because the brothers actively participated in the farming operation with Father, the reasonable inference arises that the Farm Account was opened so the brothers could maintain and continue the family business after Father’s death. Nothing in the stipulated facts points to a contrary intent. The sisters’ claim that Father intended to distribute his assets equally among his children is not negated by creation of the Farm Account, which, the sisters stipulated, was created “for the Farming Operation.” Stipulated Facts, 12/30/16, at ¶ 18. Accordingly, the orphans’ court’s finding that creation of the Farm Account was not reflective of Father’s intent is unsupported by the record. Based on the foregoing, we hold that the orphans’ court erred in concluding that the initial deposit of funds into the Farm Account was an unauthorized exercise of authority and, therefore, invalid. In doing so, we further conclude, as a matter of law, that the brothers own the Farm Account through statutory survivorship. The MPAA grants a presumption in favor of survivorship, and the sisters have not demonstrated clear and - 23 - J-S58020-17 convincing evidence that Father intended the Farm Account to be divided equally among the siblings and not include a right of survivorship. 20 Pa.C.S. § 6304; Novosielski, 992 A.2d 89. Accordingly, we reverse the orphans’ court January 19, 2017 order. Order reversed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 11/6/2017 - 24 -