In MacEwen v. Jordan, Hamilton App. No. C-020431, 2003 Ohio 1547, a brother brought suit against his sister, alleging that she had exceeded the authority granted to her as attorney-in-fact under their father's power of attorney, and breached her fiduciary duty of care when she transferred their father's property to herself. Id. at P1. Citing its prior decision in Brooks v. Bell (Apr. 10, 1998), Hamilton App. No. C-970548, 1998 Ohio App, the court noted "attorneys-in-fact act outside the scope of their authority when they use a general, durable power of attorney to make gifts to themselves." Such self-gifting "raises 'a suspicion that undue influence may have been exerted' on the principal by the attorney-in-fact.'" Id. However, the facts in MacEwen differed from those in Brooks in that the power of attorney at issue specifically conferred authority to the attorney-in-fact to gift her father's property to herself. Id. at P15. The power of attorney permitted her "to make gifts at any time, or from time to time, to anyone, including my attorney-in-fact, in such amounts and using such property as my attorney-in-fact shall determine." Id. at P2. As a result, the court in MacEwen reasoned that when a principal has "made an express grant of authority to an attorney-in-fact to make gifts to third persons, including the attorney-in-fact, the attorney-in-fact may, in the absence of evidence of undue influence upon the principal, make such gifts." Id. at P12. In such a circumstance, the suspicion of undue influence and a presumption that the transfer was invalid is no longer present. Id. at P11, P14. In addressing the respective burdens of proof when a gifting clause is present, the court in MacEwen determined that attorneys-in-fact bear the initial burden of proving the validity of the transfer to themselves pursuant to the power of attorney, while the party attacking the transfer retains the ultimate burden of proving undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at P13. In determining whether the initial transfer was valid, a court must first look to the express grant of authority in the language of the power of attorney. Id. at P14. A court must then look to other considerations, based upon the unique facts of the case. Id. These considerations may include the following: "Whether a transfer depleted assets necessary to maintain the principal's lifestyle; whether the principal knew of the gift and authorized it in some manner; whether the recipient of the transfer was the natural object of the principal's bounty and affection; whether the transfer was consistent with the principal's estate plan; whether the gift was a continuation of the principal's pattern of making gifts; and whether the transfer was made for another legitimate goal, such as the reduction of estate taxes." Id.