Valid Power-of-Attorney Must Be Given by the
Principal
A recent decision of the
Kentucky Court of Appeals ultimately addresses the simple fact that in order
for a power-of-attorney to be valid, it must be given by the principal. GGNSC
Stanford LLC, v. Rowe, No. 2012-CA-002330-MR, ___ S.W.3d __, 2012 WL
4208924 (Ky. App. Sept. 21, 2012).
Deborah Rowe, the child of
Clara LaVon Rowe and William Henry Rowe, was mentally incompetent from
birth. Her parents cared and provided
for her into her adulthood. Likely
crucial for this decision, however, Clara and William never obtained an order
of guardianship with respect to Deborah.
In October, 2001, Clara and William executed a “power of attorney”
naming Nancy Meadows as Deborah’s attorney in fact. In that power of attorney, Clara and William
identify themselves as Deborah’s “parents and guardians.”
In 2007, Deborah was placed in
a nursing home; Nancy signed Deborah’s admission papers as “PoA” and presented
a copy of her power-of-attorney to the home.
Those admission papers included an arbitration agreement. Two years later, Deborah passed away at that
same home. Thereafter, Deborah’s
brothers, as co-administrators of her estate, brought a wrongful death action
against that nursing home and certain of its affiliates. The defendants sought to refer the dispute to
arbitration. In turn, the co-administrators
asserted that there existed no binding agreement to arbitrate. The trial court agreed with that ruling,
which determination was appealed to the Court of Appeals.
With respect to assertions that
Nancy had, on Deborah’s behalf, both actual and apparent authority to enter
into the arbitration agreement, the court engaged in a discussion of both
bodies of law. Ultimately, the court
found these arguments to fail on the simple basis that Nancy’s purported authority,
whether actually granted by Clara and William or otherwise, must fail because
it was Deborah, not Clara and William, who was sought to be bound:
The principal problem with the
nursing home’s argument, however, that it is based upon a faulty premise: Deborah’s parents were not and could not be
the principals in this set of facts.
Nancy was purporting to act on Deborah’s behalf, not on behalf of Clara
and William. Attempts to trace Nancy’s
so-called apparent authority to Deborah’s parents then, must be unsuccessful
because their actions could not create a reasonable belief in [the nursing
home] that Nancy had authority to act on Deborah’s behalf.
Although not addressed by the
court, it can be inferred that the opposite holding would have been rendered
had Clara and William taken the step of being legally appointed as Deborah’s
guardian. Needless to say, for those
adult parents and other relatives who are caring for disabled children,
siblings and other relatives who have reached the age of majority, formal
guardianship procedures need to be followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment