Chapter 17 - THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ACCOUNT
The final accounting still had disputed items.
The neutral accountant reduced questionable transactions again.
Some supposed Aubrielle gifts were never finalized.
Cecily had discussed but not purchased.
Remove.
One camp transfer had been reversed later.
Net loss smaller.
Confirmed unauthorized or unsupported value:
$4,870.
Within that:
$1,500 education reallocation.
$620 bicycle.
$1,100 in smaller redirected gifts.
$1,650 mixed purchases and unsupported reallocations.
Not huge.
Then nonfinancial interference:
Bracelet return.
Card opening.
Gift relabeling.
Fake messages.
Those mattered outside accounting.
Then Marietta offered to reimburse $4,870 immediately.
Cecily refused.
Naomi asked:
“Why?”
“I want finding.”
There.
My mother had inherited my flaw.
Winning.
“Do you need a finding or punishment?”
Cecily thought.
“Both.”
Honest.
Then:
“What does Aubrielle need?”
Mother looked away.
Good question.
The money itself was not Aubrielle’s direct legal property in every transaction because some were gifts Cecily planned but had not completed.
The education deposit was clearer.
The bicycle was purchased for her.
Other things less.
A settlement could resolve money without a moral judgment.
But the fake messages and fiduciary misuse needed boundaries.
Then Cecily’s independent attorney advised:
“Do not use the accounting case to decide your relationship with your daughter.”
Exactly.
She could revoke POA.
Already done.
She could change estate.
Privately.
The court could determine restitution and misuse.
Not who deserved Mother’s love.
Then Marietta’s lawyer made an offer:
Reimburse full $4,870.
Pay neutral accountant costs.
Admit she exceeded gift authority in specified transactions.
No admission of intentional theft.
Cecily dismisses remaining civil financial claims.
Fake-message issue remains separate factual history but no damages.
Reasonable.
Cecily almost accepted.
Then one clause:
No further discussion of the matter with Livia.
Good.
Children protected.
Then:
Weston must not characterize Marietta as having stolen from Aubrielle.
I actually agreed.
Because not every dollar was legally Aubrielle’s property.
Better wording:
Weston may accurately describe court findings and party conduct but will not knowingly misstate unresolved financial facts.
Fine.
No gag.
Then Marietta demanded:
Cecily confirm in writing that Marietta remains equal beneficiary under current estate.
No.
Absolutely not.
Her estate was separate.
That clause exposed motive.
Marietta wanted financial certainty again.
Cecily refused.
Settlement failed.
Main financial case continued.
Not over $4,870.
May you like
Over future status.
Exactly the wrong reason.
