It was not a breach of fiduciary duty for the proceeds of sale of a property to be paid half to the two co-owners, mother and daughter, even though the daughter was the mother’s agent under a general power of attorney, when the mother purchased the property before executing the power of attorney and the addition of the daughter’s name as a co-owner when the property was purchased was solely the decision of the mother. There was also no evidence that the daughter had any role in the sale of the property other than signing a listing agreement that the mother later ratified. Although the grant of a power of attorney may be evidence of a prior confidential relationship, there was no evidence that the daughter had an “overmastering influence” on her mother or that the mother was not making her own decisions about the purchase and sale of the property. A claim by the mother against the daughter for withdrawing money from a joint account was denied because the money deposited to the account came from the daughter, and so the daughter remained the owner of the account during her lifetime. (Other issues addressed by the court included a breach of contract claim, the rights of co-owners of property, evidentiary rulings, and the denial of a claim for punitive damages.) Purcell v. Caples, 1818 EDA 2023, 1963 EDA 2023, 1964 EDA 2023, 1210 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 11/14/2025) (non-precedential).