It is also well-settled that the death of the principal revokes the authority of the agent, unless the agency is coupled with an interest. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Blozic, 267 Mich 479, 481-482; 255 N.W. 399 (1934); Weaver v. Richards, 144 Mich 395, 413; 108 N.W. 382 (1906). Any act done by the agent after the principal dies cannot affect the estate.
Other evidence raised the inference that Gelderloos did not direct her to close out the joint accounts with his sister, Jean VanderWall, his nephew John VanderWall, and Midkiff. Although these joint accounts had been in existence for many years, Rowbotham could not explain why Gelderloos would wait until the last few months of his life to change his mind as to who would receive the money. Chrysler Corp v Blozic, 267 Mich. 479, 482-483; 255 N.W. 399 (1934). All the witnesses agreed that Gelderloos maintained a close relationship with the VanderWall side of the family and with Midkiff. There was no evidence of any falling out that would have prompted him to change his bank accounts.
The question in this case is: Was such a power granted, and was it the deceased's intention to give such power to plaintiff? We have not been referred to, nor have we been able to find, a similar Michigan case. Appellant cites only 2 Michigan cases, namely, Chrysler Corporation v. Blozic, 267 Mich. 479; and Ecclestone v. Indialantic, Inc., 319 Mich. 248. In the Chrysler Corporation v. Blozic Case, grantor, in return for medical treatment by the county, assigned benefits under an insurance policy to the county to repay medical expenses and treatments furnished him.