N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
¶ 1. This appeal is before the court on certification from the court of appeals, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 809.61 (2003-04)1. Johnnie Russ (Johnnie) appeals from an order of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Judge Daniel A. Noonan presiding, dismissing Johnnie's complaint against her son, [269]*269Elliott Russ (Elliott), with prejudice. The complaint, which was filed on Johnnie's behalf by her guardian, Marion Schwartz (Schwartz), alleged that Elliott breached his fiduciary duty as Johnnie's agent under a power of attorney (POA), and that he engaged in conversion of funds from a joint checking account that he and Johnnie opened prior to the execution of the POA document.
¶ 2. Johnnie appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her complaint, and the court of appeals certified the following three issues to this court:
(1) Whether the fiduciary duty of a POA agent, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 243.10, prevents the agent from using the principal's funds for the agent's personal use when such funds have been deposited into a joint checking account, inasmuch as joint account holders do not owe each other any duty under Wis. Stat. § 705.03, and whether a POA constitutes "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" under § 705.03?
(2) Whether a POA document may be reformed on grounds of mutual mistake, based on: (1) extrinsic evidence of the principal's intent; (2) the lack of an accounting requirement in the POA; or (3) the fact that the principal and agent lived in the same household in a familial relationship, to effectively overcome the fiduciary duty inherent in the POA?
(3) Whether a POA principal may be equitably estopped from enforcing the agent's fiduciary duty not to self-deal because the principal and agent lived in the same household in a familial relationship?
¶ 3. We hold that a joint checking account established under Wis. Stat. § 705.03 prior to the execution of a POA creates a presumption of donative intent, and that the transfer of funds from such joint account by an agent acting under a POA, but for the agent's own use, creates a presumption of fraud, unless the POA explic[270]*270itly authorizes self-dealing.2 We further hold that when, as in the present case, these two conflicting and inconsistent presumptions coincide, the circuit court is free to make a determination based on the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, as the circuit court did here. We are also satisfied that, while the circuit court here reformed the POA document on the basis of mutual mistake, and held that equitable estoppel barred Johnnie's claim, that such an approach should not be undertaken in future cases. Rather, a circuit court should decide conflicts between Wis. Stat. § 705.03 and the fiduciary duties imposed by a POA executed under Wis. Stat. § 243.10, in the manner discussed herein.
HH
¶ 4. Johnnie was bom in 1926. In 1985, she suffered a stroke and had health problems thereafter.3 In 1992, Johnnie moved in with her son, Elliott, and his wife, Doris Russ (Doris), where she remained for the next nine years. That same year, Johnnie and Elliott opened a joint bank account into which they agreed to deposit all of Johnnie's income,4 which consisted of [271]*271monthly social security benefits, City of Milwaukee ^pension payments, and a small amount of oil royalties.
¶ 5. On February 26,1999, without the assistance of an attorney, Johnnie executed a durable Wisconsin Basic Power of Attorney for Finances and Property,5 pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 243.10 and 243.07, designating Elliott as her agent. It is undisputed that the entire document was read aloud at the time of execution. Johnnie granted Elliott all the powers on the first page of the form, authorizing him to, among other things, pay her bills and manage her bank accounts. However, she left the second page blank, choosing not to authorize Elliott to be compensated for his services or to have general authority, which would allow him to make gifts. She also did not obligate Elliott to provide her with a periodic accounting.
¶ 6. After executing the POA, the parties continued living together as they had before, maintaining their previous financial arrangement. In March of 2001, due to her deteriorating health, Johnnie was admitted to a hospital, and later a nursing home. On October 10, 2002, the circuit court declared Johnnie incompetent, appointed Schwartz as Johnnie's guardian, and terminated the durable POA.
¶ 7. On March 10, 2003, Schwartz filed this suit on Johnnie's behalf. Johnnie sought recovery of funds that Elliott withdrew from the joint account between March 1999 and April 2002, while he was her POA agent,6 for expenses related to himself, his business, [272]*272and his wife. Johnnie alleged that by using the joint account, which contained her funds, for his own ex-, penses, Elliott breached his fiduciary duty as her POA agent. During the contested period, $45,172.44 of Johnnie's funds were deposited into the joint account. The parties stipulated that, between February 1999 and October 2002, the total amount of checks written from the joint account for the benefit of Elliott was $34,379.91.
¶ 8. In the circuit court, Johnnie argued that Elliott's use of her funds from the joint account constituted self-dealing. She maintained that any authority to self-deal had to be written into the POA, and that because the POA did not authorize Elliott to make gifts or be compensated, it did not permit him to self-deal. Elliott argued that because the funds in a joint account belong to all account holders under Wis. Stat. § 705.03, he was entitled to spend the money, regardless of his role as Johnnie's POA agent. He also argued that any money he used for his own benefit was offset by the value of the care he had provided Johnnie.
¶ 9. On August 2, 2004, Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Judge Daniel A. Noonan presiding, granted Johnnie's motion for summary judgment, and ordered a hearing on damages. Judge Noonan concluded that Wis. Stat. § 705.03 did not alter Elliott's fiduciary duty to Johnnie as her POA agent to put her interests above his own in matters related to the agency. Specifically, he ruled that Elliott had a fiduciary duty to prevent Johnnie's funds from being deposited into a joint account to which another party had access.
¶ 10. On April 26, 2006, at a hearing on damages, the circuit court altered the August 2nd decision by setting aside the summary judgment and dismissing Johnnie's claim on the merits. Based on additional [273]*273evidence presented at this hearing, the court held that, as Johnnie's POA agent, Elliott had assumed the fiduciary duty "to take care of' Johnnie, and that he had not breached this duty. The circuit court entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The circuit court found that Johnnie had willingly agreed to her living arrangement, including Elliott's use of the joint account. However, the court recognized that the parties failed to execute a POA document that accurately reflected their intentions. Therefore, the court applied the equitable doctrine of mutual mistake to reform the POA document to authorize Elliott to have free use of Johnnie's money in the joint account. Additionally, the circuit court concluded that equitable estoppel barred Johnnie's claim.
¶ 11. Johnnie moved for reconsideration, and the motion was denied. She then appealed to the court of appeals, which certified the case to this court. This court accepted certification.
I — I H — I
¶ 12. This case requires this court to review the circuit court's order dismissing Johnnie's action with prejudice. When reviewing a circuit court's order of dismissal, we are faced with a question of law, which we review de novo. Ford v. Kenosha County, 160 Wis. 2d 485, 494, 466 N.W.2d 646 (1991). The circuit court's findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2). Additionally, the application of a statute to undisputed facts presents a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Setagord, 211 Wis. 2d 397, 405-06, 565 N.W.2d 506 (1997).
[274]*274¶ 13. Ordinarily, the admissibility of evidence is a discretionary decision for the circuit court, but in Praefke v. American Enterprise Life Insurance Company, 2002 WI App 235, ¶ 7, 257 Wis. 2d 637, 655 N.W.2d 456, the court of appeals treated the question of whether extrinsic evidence is permissible for the interpretation of a POA document as a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.
I — I I — I HH
¶ 14. Johnnie argues that the fiduciary relationship created by a POA under Wis. Stat. § 243.10 is, as a matter of law, "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" from the joint account provisions of Wis. Stat. § 705.037. Johnnie asserts that, immediately above Elliott's signature on the POA document, there is declaration in bold face, capital letters that states: "BY ACCEPTING OR ACTING UNDER THE APPOINTMENT, THE AGENT ASSUMES THE FIDUCIARY AND OTHER LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIABILITIES OF AN AGENT." Johnnie argues that [275]*275Elliott's signature on the POA document is clear and convincing evidence that he intended to accept the fiduciary duties of an agent.
¶ 15. Johnnie further asserts that a POA agent may not engage in self-dealing unless the power to self-deal is written in the POA document. She cites Alexopoulos v. Dakouras, 48 Wis. 2d 32, 41, 179 N.W.2d 836 (1970), and Praefke, 257 Wis. 2d 637, ¶¶ 14, 16, in support of her argument. In Alexopoulos, 48 Wis. 2d at 41, this court held that a POA created pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 243.10 creates an agency relationship that imposes a fiduciary duty on the attorney-in-fact, or POA agent.
¶ 16. In Praefke, the petitioner, Heidi Praefke (Praefke), was the attorney-in-fact for an elderly friend, Betty Glasslein (Glasslein). Praefke used the authority conveyed by the POA document to change the beneficiary designations on Glasslein's life insurance policies to herself and to make cash gifts to herself and others from Glasslein's checking account. Id., ¶ 3. Praefke argued that she did not breach her fiduciary duty to Glasslein because the POA document gave her the authority to make gifts. Id., ¶ 6. Praefke further argued that, even if the POA document did not expressly state that she had the authority to make gifts, she could provide extrinsic evidence, in the form of an affidavit, that proved Glasslein had requested that Praefke make such gifts. Id., ¶ 14. The court of appeals in Praefke relied on Alexopoulos in stating that there is a "bright-line rule that an attorney-in-fact may not make a gift to himself or herself unless there is an explicit intent in writing from the principal allowing the gift." Praefke, 257 Wis. 2d 637, ¶ 16.
¶ 17. Johnnie cites a third case, Losee v. Marine Bank, 2005 WI App 184, 286 Wis. 2d 438, 703 N.W.2d [276]*276751, in support of her argument that Elliott is liable for self-dealing, because he used money from the joint account he held with Johnnie for the benefit of himself, his business, and his wife. In Losee, a mother, Helen Losee (Helen), executed a POA document in 1994 designating her son, John, as attorney-in-fact. Id., ¶ 4. In 1997, Helen executed an assignment of rents and a mortgage against her condominium to secure a loan for John's business. Id., ¶ 17. The terms of the mortgage provided for the securing of future advances up to $1,000,000. Id., ¶ 4. Future advances thereafter were made within the $1,000,000 limit. Id., ¶ 5. In 2001, John invoked the authority conferred by the POA document to release the original mortgage on Helen's condominium so that it could be sold. Id., ¶ 6. The proceeds of the sale were placed in a certificate of deposit at Marine Bank. John then executed an Assignment of Deposit Account, in which Helen was named as the grantor, John's business was named as the borrower, and Marine Bank was named as the lender with a security interest. Id. John defaulted, Marine Bank seized the security, and Helen sued Marine Bank alleging that John engaged in self-dealing in continuing the pledge of her assets after her mortgaged condominium had been sold. Id., ¶ 7. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Marine Bank. The court of appeals reversed and granted judgment in favor of Helen. Id., ¶ 10. The court of appeals reasoned that, although the facts were different from those in Praefke because Helen executed the original mortgage without implicating the POA, and because there was no evidence that John acted out of greed, the principles of Praefke were nonetheless applicable. Id., ¶¶ 15-16. The court noted that, according to the holding in Praefke, an attorney-in-fact has a fiduciary obligation to [277]*277the principal, and cannot make gratuitous transfers of the principal's assets unless the POA expressly grants the authority to do so. Id., ¶¶ 14, 16. The court of appeals concluded that John's interests, not Helen's, prompted his decisions, and that John engaged in self-dealing. Id., ¶¶ 20-21.
¶ 18. Johnnie argues that, under the reasoning of Alexopoulos, Praefke, and Losee, Elliott should be held liable for engaging in self-dealing in violation of his fiduciary duty to Johnnie. Johnnie further argues that a conflict exists between Wis. Stat. § 705.03, under which Elliott owed no duty to Johnnie as a joint account holder, and Elliott's fiduciary duty as a POA agent pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 243.10. Johnnie asserts that there are three possible ways to resolve this conflict. First, she suggests that this court could adopt a bright-line rule, which would provide that the existence of a POA relationship is "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" within the meaning of the introductory clause of § 705.03.
¶ 19. Second, Johnnie suggests that the court could adopt a rule stating that Wis. Stat. § 705.03 provides immunity, for breach of fiduciary duty as to funds taken from a joint account held in the names of both the POA principal and POA agent. Johnnie argues that the immunity approach would be too broad, and that such an approach would endanger the principal's funds, because any and all funds that enter the joint account could be plundered with impunity and no accountability.
¶ 20. Finally, Johnnie states that the court could engage in a case by case inquiry of the intent of the parties as to the POA relationship with respect to the joint account. She argues that this court should not adopt a case by case approach, because such an approach would lend itself to a great deal of litigation and appeals.
[278]*278¶ 21. Johnnie asserts that, out of the three suggested approaches, this court should adopt the bright-line rule that the existence of a POA relationship is "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" within the meaning of the introductory clause of Wis. Stat. § 705.03. Such a rule, she argues, would provide predictability and be easy to apply, while also allowing the principal the flexibility to authorize self-dealing in the POA document, if he or she so desired.
¶ 22. Elliott argues that the use of a preexisting joint account is not affected by the fiduciary duty established by a subsequently executed POA document, unless the POA document so provides, or there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent outside of the POA document that would apply to the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 705.03. Elliott asserts that the joint account held by himself and Johnnie was opened prior to the execution of the POA document. He argues that there was no change in the use of the joint account before and after execution of the POA document.
¶ 23. Elliott argues that, by completing the first page of the POA document and leaving the second page blank, Johnnie authorized Elliott to pay her bills, manage her accounts, and do banking on her behalf, but did not authorize him to be compensated for his services nor to make gifts. Elliott further asserts that Johnnie chose not to initial line item number 14, which would have required Elliott to render an accounting. Elliott argues that the facts in this case do not amount to "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" under Wis. Stat. § 705.03.
¶ 24. Elliott further argues that this case is distinguishable from Alexopoulos, Praefke, and Losee. Elliott asserts that none of those three cases involved a joint checking account. In the present case, Elliott [279]*279argues, he and Johnnie opened the joint checking account in 1992, more than six years before Johnnie designated Elliott as her POA agent. He argues that Johnnie agreed to deposit all of her income, consisting of monthly social security benefits, City of Milwaukee pension payments, and oil royalties, into the joint account. Elliott asserts that there is no evidence that Johnnie ever attempted or desired to change the flow of her income into the joint account after the execution of the POA document.
¶ 25. Elliott cites Estates of Beisbier, 47 Wis. 2d 409, 418, 177 N.W.2d 919 (1970) in support of his argument that a joint checking account is utilized as a "shared wallet," and that a primary consideration behind opening a joint account is to handle living expenses and transfer assets at death by way of survivor-ship. Elliott argues that he did not engage in self-dealing, and that the intent of both parties was that the income in the joint account should be shared for the use of the family living arrangement. Elliott asserts that he and Johnnie had a shared understanding that Elliott could have unfettered use of the joint account. He argues that the family combined and interchanged their incomes without a need for accounting, and that Johnnie received benefits from the living arrangement, including nursing care, a health care provider, medicine, room and board, clothing, and vacations. Elliott also asserts that Johnnie stated that she wanted to be part of the Russ family, and that the Russes could spend the money she had on the family business.
¶ 26. Elliott argues that this court should not adopt the bright-line rule suggested by Johnnie, because it is too restrictive. He argues that such a rule would hold a POA agent liable for any money spent out of a joint account, in situations where the POA docu[280]*280ment is silent as to gifting or as to use of a preexisting joint account.
¶ 27. He further argues that the POA document had no language requiring him to account for his withdrawals from the joint account, and that he should not be penalized for failing to do so. Finally, Elliott asserts that a joint account opened before the execution of a POA document is different from a joint account opened afterward. He argues that the joint account in this case was opened long before the existence of the POA, and that there is no evidence to suggest anything other than a donative intent.
¶ 28. We agree with Johnnie that a POA agent has a fiduciary duty to the principal, and that the agent is usually prohibited from self-dealing unless the power to self-deal is written in the POA document. Praefke, 257 Wis. 2d 637, ¶ 16; Alexopoulos, 48 Wis. 2d at 41. However, in this case, the prohibition against self-dealing is complicated by the fact that Elliott and Johnnie opened a joint checking account in 1992, shared the joint account for more than six years before they executed the POA document in 1999, and continued to use the joint account after the execution of the POA document.
¶ 29. Under Wis. Stat. § 705.03, "unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent," the parties to a joint account may withdraw and use the funds in the account without being required to account to any other party to the joint account. In this case, the POA document itself is not clear as to the parties' intent. As the circuit court pointed out in its findings of fact, Johnnie did not check the box on the second page of the POA document that would have required Elliott to provide an accounting, nor did she write instructions for how the joint account should be handled.
[281]*281¶ 30. Although a POA document creates a fiduciary relationship, the document in this case is silent as to whether Johnnie intended to change the way income flowed into or out of the joint account after the execution of the POA document. One way to avoid future uncertainty about the intentions of parties to a POA would be to have the principal write clearly his or her intentions into the POA document. The Wisconsin Basic Power of Attorney for Finances and Property form has blank lines at the end of the form that could be used for such a purpose.
¶ 31. We hold that, when a POA agent and a principal share a preexisting joint checking account, the execution of a POA document, in and of itself, is not "clear and convincing evidence of a different intent" under Wis. Stat. § 705.03. We are satisfied that § 705.03, under which Elliott owed no duty to Johnnie as a joint account holder, appears to conflict with Elliott's fiduciary duty as a POA agent pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 243.10. This case involves conflicting and inconsistent presumptions.8 When funds are deposited into a joint bank account, donative intent is presumed. Derr v. Derr; 2005 WI App 63, ¶ 36, 280 Wis. 2d 681, 696 N.W.2d 170. The length of time that funds remain in a joint account, along with other evidence, is " 'part of the inquiry into whether the presumption of donative intent is rebutted by other evidence." Id., ¶ 36 (citing Finley v. Finley, 2002 WI App 44, ¶ 38, 256 Wis. 2d 508, 648 N.W.2d 536).
[282]*282¶ 32. On the other hand, a fiduciary, such as a POA agent, has an obligation not to engage in self-dealing. In Zastrow v. Journal Communications, Inc., 2006 WI 72, 291 Wis. 2d 426, 718 N.W.2d 51, we stated, "A consistent facet of a fiduciary duty is the constraint on the fiduciary's discretion to act in his own self-interest because by accepting the obligation of a fiduciary he consciously sets another's interests before his own." Id., ¶ 28 (citation omitted). When a POA agent, for the agent's own use, transfers funds deposited by the principal, without written authority in the POA document to do so, a presumption of fraud is created, regardless of whether the funds were deposited before or after the execution of the POA.
¶ 33. Like the present case, Marine Bank v. Taz's Trucking Inc., 2005 WI 65, 281 Wis. 2d 275, 697 N.W.2d 90 involved conflicting and inconsistent presumptions. In that case, the conflicting and inconsistent presumptions concerned consignor and consignee liability for freight charges. This court quoted Professor Daniel D. Blinka in its analysis, stating, " 'Should inconsistent presumptions be established in a case, the weight of the evidence establishing the facts upon which the presumption^] are premised [the basic facts] is for the trier of fact....'" Id., ¶ 30 (quoting 7 Blinka, Wisconsin Practice: Wisconsin Evidence, § 301.4 at 73 n.10 (2d ed. 2001)(citations omitted)).
¶ 34. In Estate of Rybolt, 631 N.E.2d 792, 795 (Ill. App. 1994), the Illinois court of appeals9 stated that "where such conflicting presumptions exist they cancel each other out, leaving the trial court free to make az [283]*283determination based upon facts and credibility of the witnesses." The court cited In re Estate of Harms, 603 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ill. App. 1992), another Illinois court of appeals case, in which there were joint accounts that existed prior to the fiduciary relationship created by a POA. Income was deposited into the joint account while the fiduciary relationship existed. The court held for the POA agent, reasoning that the deposits made to the accounts followed a procedure that was used prior to the existence of the fiduciary relationship. Id. at 45.
¶ 35. Then, in In re Estate of Teall, 768 N.E.2d 124 (Ill. App. 2002), the Illinois court of appeals limited the holding in Harms to apply only when a joint account was created before the fiduciary relationship began, and where deposits made during the fiduciary relationship followed a procedure that was established before that relationship. The court stated, " '[WJhere the attorney-in-fact actively uses his position to create the joint tenancies the presumptions do not cancel; instead, the controlling presumption is the presumption of fraud, which requires strong evidence to overcome.'" Id. at 130 (citations omitted).
¶ 36. We adopt the approach of the Illinois court of appeals in Estate ofRybolt, In re Estate of Harms, and In re Estate of Teall. We hold that a joint checking account established under Wis. Stat. § 705.03 prior to the execution of a POA creates a presumption of donative intent. We further hold that when an agent acting under a POA transfers funds deposited by the principal from such joint account, but for the agent's [284]*284own use, a presumption of fraud is created. When these two conflicting and inconsistent presumptions coexist, the circuit court is then free to make a determination based upon the facts and the credibility of the witnesses. In re Estate of Harms, 603 N.E.2d at 44. Under such circumstances, as well as in cases where a power of attorney agent actively uses his or her authority to create a joint account with the principal, thereby triggering a presumption of fraud, extrinsic evidence may be admissible to determine the intent of the parties.10 The prohibition against the admissibility of extrinsic evidence of the parties' intent to allow the making of gifts, as set forth in Praefke, 257 Wis. 2d 637, ¶ 20, would not apply in such cases.11
¶ 37. In arriving at its conclusion that Elliott did not breach his fiduciary duty nor engage in conversion, the circuit court reformed the POA document on grounds of mutual mistake and applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar Johnnie's claim. Although the [285]*285circuit court applied the doctrines of reformation and equitable estoppel, we decline to take that approach here because such approach, if followed by other circuit courts, would likely be very time consuming. Those doctrines are often difficult to apply, especially in cases such as the one presented here. The equitable remedy of reformation requires a showing that the instrument fails to express the intent of the parties, either because of the mutual mistake of both parties, or because of the mistake of one party coupled with fraud or inequitable conduct of the other party. Henning v. Ahern, 230 Wis. 2d 149, 174, 601 N.W.2d 14 (1999). The elements for equitable estoppel include (1) an action or non-action that induces (2) reliance by another, either in the form of action or non-action, (3) to his or her detriment. Randy A. J. v. Norma I.J., 2004 WI 41, ¶ 26, 270 Wis. 2d 384, 677 N.W.2d 630. We are satisfied that the conflicting presumptions approach taken by Illinois courts, and adopted here, will be more efficient and less time consuming than the multistep process of utilizing reformation and equitable estoppel. We also decline to adopt a bright-line rule, as suggested by Johnnie. We recognize that joint accounts are tools that can be useful for a POA agent and principal in carrying out the practical duties of daily life.
¶ 38. In its findings of fact, the circuit court noted numerous facts that were essential to its dismissal of Johnnie's complaint. We will not set aside a circuit court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. See Wis. Stat. § 805.17(2). Some of the most significant findings of fact include the following:
19. There is no dispute that the power of attorney contract is blank when it comes to the requirement to provide an accounting.
[286]*28622. Plaintiff, defendant, and Doris Russ lived together as three adults living a comfortable life. The arrangement was that everything defendant and Doris Russ had was plaintiffs and everything plaintiff had was defendant's and Doris Russ' as a family and commingled income and expenses.
23. A paid caretaker was present almost daily for many years, at the direction of Doris Russ and defendant, in addition to the care given by Doris Russ, Leea Power, formerly a home health assistant, and defendant.
28. The understanding and deal between the parties .. . that is consistent with everybody's testimony and the actions for many years both before and after the power of attorney was signed is that plaintiff and everyone concerned understood that defendant was taking care of plaintiff because she was his mother and defendant could do what he pleased with her money.
29. The understanding between plaintiff, defendant and probably Doris Russ was that there was not to be a dispute, there was to be no litigation over expenditures of money and clearly an intent that such litigation should never happen.
32. Plaintiff gave defendant broad discretion over the seven years prior to the signing of the power of attorney to use the joint account in any manner without objection and the parties intended that to continue after the signing of the power of attorney.
33. Plaintiff wilfully [sic] and voluntarily agreed to live with defendant and Doris Russ and plaintiff relied upon their willingness to take care of her, provide housing, [287]*287food, clothing, vacations, health care and other personal needs and in exchange defendant and plaintiff created a joint account and there was freewheeling use of that account for many years. After the signing of the power of attorney defendant chose willingly and voluntarily to continue this relationship the same as before.
35. Plaintiff placed no restrictions upon the joint account and entitled defendant to use it freely and without restriction.
36. The parties were not represented by any attorney(s) with regard to the drafting or signing of the power of attorney.
¶ 39. These findings of fact are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. The circuit court's findings provide a sufficient basis for its conclusion that Elliott did not breach his fiduciary duty. Here we adopt and use the conflicting and inconsistent presumptions approach, rather than the doctrines of reformation and equitable estoppel, in reaching our holding that the decision of the circuit court should be affirmed.12
IV
¶ 40. We hold that a joint checking account established under Wis. Stat. § 705.03 prior to the execution of a POA creates a presumption of donative intent, and that the transfer of funds from such a joint account by an agent acting under a POA, but for the agent's own use, creates a presumption of fraud, unless the POA explicitly authorizes self-dealing. We further hold that [288]*288when, as in the present case, these two conflicting and inconsistent presumptions coincide, the circuit court is free to make a determination based on the facts and the credibility of the witnesses, as the circuit court did here. We are also satisfied that, while the circuit court here reformed the POA document on the basis of mutual mistake, and held that equitable estoppel barred Johnnie's claim, that such an approach should not be undertaken in future cases. Rather, a circuit court should decide conflicts between Wis. Stat. § 705.03 and the fiduciary duties imposed by a POA executed under Wis. Stat. § 243.10, in the manner discussed herein.
By the Court. — The order of the circuit court is affirmed.