I begin with a rant. Power of attorney litigation is the worst. I am not talking here about the kind of litigation where there is an actual financial predator who has obtained a power of attorney through fraud and stolen money from a vulnerable person. That is properly a matter for the courts and the kind of case I derive great satisfaction in pursuing.
I am talking about the kind of power of attorney dispute where the sole issue is whether Johnny or Jane should act as attorney for property and personal care for their parent.
The usual fact pattern begins after the first parent dies. In the aftermath of Dad's death, the entire family realizes how much Dad's involvement had been masking Mom's dementia symptoms. It becomes immediately apparent that Mom is struggling on her own – burning things on the stove, losing her license after a minor car accident, missing appointments, and having trouble with word finding.
Jane is the Responsible One. Jane was always the straight-A student, the rule follower, and the one her parents leaned on most in their senior years. Jane has a Big Job and a busy life with all the typical Type A supermom activities. Naturally, when her parents did their estate and capacity planning 20 years ago while both were well, Jane was selected as the attorney for personal care and finances.
Johnny, by contrast, was not successful in any traditional sense. He doesn't have regular work, went through an ugly divorce such that he has no full-time parenting responsibilities, and suffered from a substance use disorder from which he has recovered. He has no financial security and does not own a home. As mothers do, Mom adores Johnny. Jane and Johnny do not get along.
Johnny moves in with Mom, which works for both of them. Mom spent the last 40 years of her life making this house exactly the home she wanted. Each knick knack is precious to her. She loves having Johnny around. Jane, however, sees Johnny's care as substandard. In her view, Mom is not getting bathed or showered enough, Mom is spending too much time watching TV and not enough time doing enriching word puzzles. Jane read about the optimal Alzheimer's diet and laments the processed food Mom and Johnny seem to be relying on. Mom's nails and hair, which had always been immaculate, are dirty and unkempt.
As the attorney for personal care and property, Jane decides it would be best for Mom to move to a state-of-the-art memory care facility. Mom is happy living in her home with Johnny and doesn't want to go. Jane believes that Mom is just not capable of making that decision anymore and ignores Mom's pleas. Desperate, Mom sees a lawyer (she has no license, so Johnny takes her there) and signs new powers of attorney naming Johnny as her new attorney for personal care and property.
Jane lawyers up. Her lawyer tells her that because the new power of attorney documents were prepared when mom had dementia, a Court could find them invalid and then she would go back to being in charge. Johnny also gets a lawyer. Eventually, a judge also appoints a section 3 lawyer for Mom.
From Mom's perspective, things become a nightmare. She reads pages of deeply embarrassing affidavit content drafted by Jane's lawyer, including anecdotal evidence about the time that she couldn't make it to the bathroom on time and had an accident at church, another about the traumatizing time she got lost. The affidavit evidence contains photos to show how dirty her hair is, how long her toenails are, and the spoiled food in her fridge. She feels an overwhelming sense of shame and embarrassment. She feels like every visit from Jane over the last few months was a trick designed to capture embarrassing video and photo evidence for Jane's court case against her. The next time Jane comes to visit, Mom tells Johnny not to let Jane in.
The legal fees in these types of cases are breathtaking because lawyers take over all communications between Johnny and Jane, who no longer speak. Every petty grievance or detail of Mom's life is aired out through letter exchanges between lawyers charging hundreds of dollars per hour.
For the price Jane is paying her lawyers, she could have paid for Mom to have weekly manicures and pedicures, twice-weekly blow-outs, a meal delivery service, weekly visits to the spa, and an Alzheimer's day program a couple of times a week. But instead, Jane is obsessed with proving that her brother is a deadbeat getting “free rent” by staying in Mom's house with her. Jane wants to be back in charge, and she wants a judge to confirm that she is the Good Daughter and Johnny is a Very Bad Son. By the point that they get to mediation, both sides have incurred tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The legal fees then become the impediment to resolving the legal dispute. I have mediated many of these cases where the parties are able to resolve all the important issues – where Mom will live, what type of caregiving supports she will have – but the sole remaining issue is each side's belief that the other side should pay legal costs. Having settled, it would be difficult to get a judge to decide the costs issue independently because the judge doesn't have context to award costs to one side or the other without delving into all the issues that are now settled. In many cases, the fight continues and more costs are incurred just because neither side will cave or compromise on costs. And in a sad number of cases, the parent dies while the litigation is still unresolved.
Estate and capacity litigators, we need to find better ways of dealing with these issues. In my experience as section 3 counsel for many “Moms” in these cases, not once has the parent said to me, “I am so glad Jane brought this court case to get me the care I need.” Universally, the parent caught in the middle of the dispute says, “I love both my children equally. I want them to get along and I want this litigation to end.” To them, the litigation feels “stupid” (a direct quote from a section 3 client), embarrassing, damaging and incredibly stressful. In my next series of blogs, I am going to share some ideas about how we might change our approach to these kinds of disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.