Power Of Attorney Problems---Who Has The Right To Try And Fix Them?

I have previously written about powers of attorney, which can be great estate planning tools in the right hands and terrible estate planning hands in the wrong hands ("licenses to steal").  

In other words, powers of attorney can be very useful for assisting persons with making financial and health care related decisions.  On the other hand, if the "agent" ends up taking advantage of the "principal" by carrying out acts which are not in the principal's interest (and which, for example, are instead in the agent's interest), the principal can be financially devastated (e.g., the agent could clean out the agent's bank account or sell their real estate, etc.)  or their health can be prejudiced (e.g., the agent could withhold treatment, etc.).  

Sometimes people other than the principal (perhaps the principal is incapacitated or deceased)  want to challenge the agent's actions, and a question of "legal standing" is raised.  Put another way, there is occasionally an issue regarding who if anyone besides the principal  has the right to challenge certain conduct carried out pursuant to a power of attorney.

In Arkansas that question is often answered by Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 28-68-116, which is the "Judicial Relief" section of the Uniform Power Of Attorney Act codified at Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 28-68-101, et seq.  The Uniform Law Comment to Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 28-68-116 states that "[t]he primary purpose of this section is to protect vulnerable or incapacitated principals against financial abuse."  

The statute says that:

(a)   The following persons may petition a court to construe a power of attorney or review the agent's conduct, and grant appropriate relief:

(1)   the principal or the agent;

(2)  a guardian, conservator, or other fiduciary acting for the principal;

(3)   a person authorized to make health-care decisions for the principal;

(4)   the principal's spouse, parent, or descendant;

(5)   an individual who would qualify as a presumptive heir of the principal;

(6)   a person named as a beneficiary to receive any property, benefit, or contractual right on the principal's death or as a beneficiary of a trust created by or for the principal that has a financial interest in the principal's estate;

(7)   a governmental agency having regulatory authority to protect the welfare of the principal;

(8)   the principal's caregiver or another person that demonstrates sufficient interest in the principal's welfare; and

(9)   a person asked to accept the power of attorney.

(b)   Upon motion by the principal, the court shall dismiss a petition filed under this section, unless the court finds that the principal lacks capacity to revoke the agent's authority or the power of attorney.

As one can see, a wide variety of individuals has the power to challenge actions taken under a power of attorney.  The Uniform Law Comment to this statute says that such "broad categories" serve the purpose of "[a]llowing any person with sufficient interest to petition the court" and this "is the approach taken by the majority of states that have standing provisions."

I have represented (1)  power of attorney agents, (2)  power of attorney principals, and (3)  family members and friends of power of attorney principals.   For the first group,  this statute is a good reminder that they need to be careful  acting under a power of attorney because any number of people have legal standing to challenge their conduct.  For the second and third groups, this statute allows for a wide array of persons to contest agent behavior which they perceive to be unfair to or indicative of exploitation of a principal.  

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Managing Someone Else's Money

 Estate, trust, power of attorney and probate disputes often develop due to disagreements over the manner in which someone managed another person's money. For example, the beneficiaries of a will might disagree with the executor's claim for fees related to administration of an estate.  Co-trustees might differ as to the best investments for maximizing the income and assets of a trust.  Two children might question the propriety of their third sibling's withdrawals of money from their mother's bank account, pursuant to a financial power of attorney that the mother apparently executed at some point in the past.

 To provide guidance in these situations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recently released 4 booklets entitled "Managing Someone Else's Money" which are intended for such persons as trustees, agents under powers of attorney, court-appointed guardians, and government fiduciaries.  Not only do they assist those who are honestly and legitimately attempting to assist in the management of money or property for a loved one, they also provide information on warning signs and things to look for when someone else is doing the managing of that person's finances.

 Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Stealing From Grandma And Grandpa---Inheritance Theft

A recent lengthy but interesting series of stories (Part I and Part II) on the odd heiress, Huguette Clark, appeared to prompt a good article yesterday from Bob Sullivan, who covers Internet scams and consumer fraud for msnbc.com.  Mr. Sullivan's posting focuses upon allegations and situations involving elder financial abuse, which is a significant portion of my own law practice.  I suggest that you read the article when you have a free moment, as it extensively summarizes a growing issue in this country and is obviously one in which you may very well have an interest if you regularly read or have merely stumbled upon my Blog.  

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, Fink & House, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Rejects Cousin's Attempt To Set Aside Gifts To The Decedent's "Yardman"

One common thread running throughout this blog since its inception has been the issue of competency, i.e., the ability of a person to make informed decisions.  Conflicts often arise when ill or elderly people are claimed to have made signficant decisions regarding disposition of their property shortly before they died---sometimes the decision will be legitimate, the culmination of some long, thought-out plan that just never was memorialized on paper until shortly before their death---whereas sometimes the "decision" will be illegitimate, the product of undue influence or overreaching by a dishonest relative, family friend, or advisor.  Whatever the facts and circumstances, it can be difficult to prove that the person did not have competency to make the decision that they purportedly made.  A recent Arkansas Court of Appeals decision demonstrates that the outcome of these disputes usually boils down to the specific evidence that was presented to the trial court, and ultimately what evidence that the trial court found to be the most credible. 

For example, on March 3, 2010, the Court of Appeals ruled in the case of Deslauriers v. Marilyn Irene Deslauriers Revocable Trust, 2010 Ark.App. 211.  An appeal from Lonoke County Circuit Court, the appellant (Killeen) attempted to invalidate certain documents (quitclaim deed, revocable trust, will, etc.) executed by her cousin, the deceased, during and after her 2005 stay in a hospital due to a stroke.  As a result of those documents, the appellee (Richard, the deceased's "yardman") received the bulk of the cousin's estate.  Killeen filed suit after the cousin's death to contest the validity of the documents in question, contending that the cousin was not competent to execute them due to her medical condition. 

Under Arkansas law, the party contesting the validity of a will generally has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence ("more likely than not"), (1) that the decedent lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed or (2) that the decedent was acting under undue influence.  The Deslauriers Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the cousin attempting to set aside the documents did not satisfy that burden. 

Killeen presented the testimony of multiple doctors who had treated the deceased around the time of her execution of the documents, and they all testified  that she suffered from dementia and would purportedly be incompetent to sign the documents (though they were admittedly not in attendance at the signing).  Medical records also demonstrated a range of impairment (from mild to severe) at different times during the relevant time period.  Killeen likewise presented the testimony of two non-medical witnesses, one of whom contended that  the deceased was mentally incompetent (in their experience) and both of whom testified that the deceased intended to keep her property "in the family."

Richard presented the testimony of the lawyer whom the cousin used to prepare the documents in question, and he testified that he was very careful to determine whether his client was legally competent to execute the documents.  The attorney also testified that he had been hired to prepare a power of attorney so that Killeen and Richard could be placed in charge of the deceased's business affairs, and that Killeen herself believed the deceased to be an odd person but very competent.  Two other witnesses also testified, in a manner favoring Richard's position, to the extent that they were disinterested employees working at the hospital where the deceased was treated and they observed her as competent when they witnessed her signing of the will.   Richard also offered other evidence in the form of the attorney testifying that he met with the deceased several times after her initial execution of the documents, and in the  form of a doctor who treated the deceased remarking that he was impressed how mentally capable (though not physically capable) she remained after her stroke.

In sum, the trial court concluded that the cousin did not prove incompetency and that the deceased was sufficiently competent at the time that she executed the documents.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that while proof of medical condition around the time of the execution of the documents is relevant and important, ultimately the medical condition at the time of execution is paramount.  The Court seemed to attach particular significance to the testimony of the witnesses who were actually in the room when the decedent signed the documents in question.  Observing that it is possible for a testator to execute a document during a "lucid interval" in a period where they may otherwise be incompetent as a general matter, the case generally demonstrates the difficulty that a party can have in attempting to prove a testator's   incompetency. 

Questions About Notarized Document Result In Reversal Of Trial Court's Ruling

More times than I can count since I started practicing law, I have been involved in lawsuits in which the authenticity of a signature on a document was a primary disputed issue in the case.  Whether our law firm was representing the plaintiff who was suspicious of a signed document, or instead representing the defendant who was insisting upon the validity of a signed document, many of these situations entailed questions over how and/or when a notary public witnessed a person's signature.  The types of documents involved (e.g., wills, trusts, deeds, contracts, etc.) is as varied as the types of alleged misconduct (e.g., never actually witnessing the signature, backdating a document, failing to properly identify a signer, willfully stating as true a material fact known to be false, etc.).  Make no mistake---there are laws governing notaries and their actions, but for some reason often many notaries can get somewhat loosey-goosey regarding their obligation to strictly follow the letter of the law.

In any event, on October 22, 2009, the Arkansas Supreme Court intervened in such a dispute and reversed a trial court's ruling that a power of attorney transferring real property was valid.  In Jones v. Owen, 2009 Ark. 505, an appeal from Sebastian County Circuit Court, the Court considered a case involving disputed land, a father's will, and that father's power of attorney.  You can guess what happened, of course . . . the will said that the land went to X while the power of attorney ultimately resulted in the land being  conveyed to Y.  Litigation ensued and the trial court ruled that the power of attorney was valid.

In overturning that decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that the power of attorney was not valid and did not authorize the property to be transferred.  Specifically, in this instance the power of attorney was apparently acknowledged by a notary public prior to the decedent ever signing it.  That is, the notary public had signed the acknowledgment and left the date blank, which was later filled in by the attorney handling the transaction.  The Court ruled that in some circumstances a signature could be notarized without the notary public physically being there to witness the signature (e.g., after signing a grantor can appear before a notary and acknowledge his signature, a grantor can acknowledge his signature via a telephone call with the notary, etc.).  However, if the grantor never appears to acknowledge his signature, but the notary falsely certifies that the grantor did appear, then the acknowledgement will be deemed void. 

Moral of the story:  Notaries have a tremendous amount of power, as they add a significant measure of validity to the execution of documents which record major financial transactions and carry out a person's final wishes regarding their property.  Those powers should not be exercised carelessly, much less fraudulently.  Jones v. Owen appears to be a clear message from the Court that it will require notaries to strictly comply with their  legal duties, and that the Court will not hesitate to set aside transactions when warranted under the facts and circumstances.