Man takes wife to court over Dh5.8m after she sells family home with power of attorney

Dubai: A man has filed a lawsuit against his wife seeking more than Dh5.8 million in financial and moral compensation, alleging she transferred ownership of their family home to herself and later sold it while he was abroad, a claim that was ultimately dismissed by a civil court in Dubai.

The dispute centred on a general power of attorney the husband had granted during their marriage, giving his wife broad authority to manage his affairs. The document, as reviewed by the court, explicitly allowed her not only to buy and sell property on his behalf but also to gift assets to herself or others and accept such gifts in his name.

According to Emarat Al Youm, Court records show that the wife used this authority to execute a formal gift contract, transferring ownership of the property to herself. The transaction was duly notarised by a registrar at the Dubai Land Department, completing the legal requirements for the transfer.

Nearly two years later, she sold the property for around Dh5 million, according to official ownership records. The husband, who had by then revoked the power of attorney, subsequently filed a claim, alleging that his wife had abused the mandate, accusing her of fraud, deception and breach of trust.

He argued that the transfer and sale went beyond the bounds of confidence inherent in their relationship, and sought Dh5.64 million for material damages, in addition to Dh250,000 for moral harm.

The wife, however, maintained that all her actions fell squarely within the authority granted to her. In her defence, she submitted documents including email correspondence from the husband himself, expressing his intention to transfer ownership of the property to her as a gift, along with official communications supporting the transfer process.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised that a power of attorney is a legal instrument through which a principal authorises another person to act on their behalf in specified matters, with the scope of authority determined by the wording of the document itself.

After examining the terms of the disputed mandate, the court found that it clearly extended beyond administrative functions, expressly granting the wife the right to gift property to herself. As such, her actions did not constitute an overreach but were carried out within the limits of the authority given.

The court also addressed the nature of a gift under the law, noting that it involves the transfer of ownership without consideration, based on the intention to donate. It held that the essential elements of the gift were fulfilled in this case, as evidenced by the formal registration and subsequent transfer of ownership, followed by the sale.

It further highlighted that the law places restrictions on revoking gifts, particularly between spouses, where such gifts are generally not subject to reversal unless exceptional conditions apply, none of which were found in this case.

The court accepted the submitted email correspondence as valid legal evidence, noting that such communications carry the evidentiary weight of customary documents when not contested by the parties involved.

As for the compensation claim, the court underlined that liability, whether contractual or tortious, requires proof of three elements: fault, damage and causation. It concluded that no fault could be established on the wife’s part, given that her actions were legally authorised, and that no direct unlawful harm had been proven.

With one of the essential elements of liability absent, the court rejected the claim in full and ordered the plaintiff to pay court fees, expenses, and Dh1,000 in legal costs.