Khaberni - The Dubai Primary Civil Court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit filed by a man of Arab nationality against his wife, who was seeking financial and moral compensation exceeding 5.8 million dirhams, following her gifting their marital home to herself and then selling it while he was traveling abroad, using a general power of attorney he issued to her, which he considered a form of fraud, deceit, and breach of trust.
The case details relate to a normal marital relationship, during which the husband gave his wife a general power of attorney, which included extensive powers, encompassing the acquisition and disposition of properties by sale or transfer, and even gifting them to herself or others, and accepting gifts on behalf of the principal, with these powers explicitly stated in the provisions of the power of attorney.
According to the lawsuit documents, the wife exploited this power of attorney to execute a gifting contract, whereby she gifted the disputed property to herself as an agent on behalf of her husband, and this contract was recorded with the Registrar of Real Estate at the Department of Land and Property, which means that the transaction was completed in accordance with the approved formal procedures.
The matter did not stop there, as the wife later sold the property, as evidenced by the property ownership certificate issued by the Department of Land and Property, showing that she disposed of it two years after gifting it to herself, for about five million dirhams, prompting the husband to take legal action after canceling the power of attorney.
In his claim, the husband insisted that what his wife had done constituted an exploitation of the power of attorney and exceeded the boundaries of trust, considering her actions to constitute breach of trust, fraud, and deceit, seeking compensation of five million and 640 thousand dirhams for the material damages suffered, plus 250 thousand dirhams for moral damages.
In contrast, the wife argued that all the actions she took were within the limits of the granted power of attorney, and she submitted documents including electronic correspondence from the husband himself, expressing his desire to transfer the property ownership to her as a gift, as well as official communications addressed to competent authorities to complete the property transfer procedures.
The court explained in its ruling that according to the law, a power of attorney is a contract whereby the principal appoints another person in his place for a permissible known transaction, and the extent of the agent's authority is determined by the text of the power of attorney itself, and whether it includes the actions taken or not.
Upon interpreting the clauses of the disputed power of attorney, the court found that it was not limited to administrative or minor actions, but explicitly included granting the wife the right to gift to herself, which makes her act of executing the gifting contract for herself fall within the limits of the delegated authority, and not exceed it. The court also addressed the nature of the gifting contract, affirming that it involves property transfer without compensation with the intent to donate, and that it is concluded by offer and acceptance, and is completed by the transfer of possession, which was realized in this case through the recording of the contract and the subsequent transfer and disposal by sale.
The court noted that the law imposes restrictions on revoking gifts, among them gifts between spouses, stating explicitly that a gift from one spouse to the other is considered to prevent it from being revoked, unless exceptional circumstances that were not met in the dispute exist.
The court also confirmed that the electronic correspondence submitted in the lawsuit constitutes legal evidence, as they have the effect of customary writings once issued by their parties and not challenged, which applies to the messages submitted that included a clear wish from the husband to transfer the property to his wife.
The court clarified that the wife's subsequent sale of the property is evidence of actual possession and the complete transfer of ownership to her, which confirms the completion and validity of the gift.
Regarding the compensation claim, the court emphasized that liability, whether contractual or tortious, is established only with the presence of three elements: fault, damage, and causation, and that the burden of proving these elements falls on the claimant.
With that application, the court found that there was no fault on the part of the wife, as her actions were within the limits of the correct power of attorney, and no direct damage arising from an illegal act was proven, leading to the dismissal of one of the elements of liability, and consequently dismissing the compensation claim, resulting in the court dismissing the lawsuit, requiring the plaintiff to cover the fees, expenses, and an amount of 1000 dirhams for legal fees.
