Pennsylvania Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Barley Snyder Law Firm : Serving Lancaster, Reading, York, Chambersburg

            Once again, the Supreme Court has checked the Superior Court in a decision involving powers of attorney. In In re: Weidner, 2007 WL 4555334, the Supreme Court confirmed its long-held stance that powers of attorney must be read broadly to confer powers on those who are appointed as agents. The Court again struck down the Superior Court’s inexplicable penchant for restricting agents and placing interpretative limitations on power of attorney documents.

            In Weidner, the power of attorney document - a form-book document - granted the agent all powers set forth in “Chapter 56 of Title 20 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Annotated, (20 Pa.C.S.A. 5601 through 5607)…as amended from time to time”. The Superior Court said that the document was inadequate and did not expressly grant the agent the power to change the beneficiary designation of a life insurance policy. The Superior Court stated that without more - such as attaching a copy of the statute - the document was insufficient to apprise the principal of what powers he or she is granting. The Superior Court would have required notice to the principal in some form and recommended attaching a copy of the statute to the POA document. 

            In a unanimous decision (with 2 justices filing concurring opinions), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld its long standing analysis of POA documents as set forth in the Reifsneider case, 610 A.2d 958 (Pa. 1992). The Court, per Justice Eakin, held that [d]ecedent’s power of attorney expressly incorporated the Powers of Attorney statute, and expressly granted Rhodes the power and authority to do any act therein.

            The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Superior Court for disposition of remaining issues. On remand, in a non-precedential decision, the Superior Court upheld the trial court’s determination that the power of attorney was sufficient to permit the change in beneficiary on life insurance policies.

            This is a recurring theme vis-à-vis our Supreme and Superior Courts, particularly in the area of trusts and estates and powers of attorney. Attempts to interpret power of attorney documents in such limited ways have been litigated repeatedly with the Superior Court applying very limited interpretations of documents and the Supreme Court confirming time and time again that power of attorney documents must be interpreted broadly. Kudos to the Supreme Court for grasping the implications of this issue, as it effects all of those, and there are many, who act under these power of attorney documents.

            slip opinion http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-35-2007mo.pdf   and concurring opinion available http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-35-2007co.pdf

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Most people think, mistakenly, that “joint bank accounts” held with others creates equal ownership interests of funds deposited within the accounts. As a result, most people think, mistakenly, that they possess equal rights to the use of funds within the accounts. As a practical matter, one party’s misuse of funds most frequently does not result in litigation because: folks willing to create joint accounts with others typically open joint or multi-party accounts because of a close relationship built on trust and even where one party may abuse that trust, there may often be reluctance to bring a legal action because of the relationship. 

There are, however, a myriad of scenarios that would give rise to one aggrieved party’s desire to bring a legal action to recover monies used improperly from the account by another ranging from the amount of money at issue, a falling out of the relationship, use of money in manner not contemplated by the parties, i.e., money earmarked for the present or future care of a loved one but used for another’s personal gain--and the list goes on and on. 

When a legal action is instituted to recover monies improperly used from a joint account, Pennsylvania’s Multiple Party Account Act, 20 Pa.C.S. § 6301 et seq., provides the answers to important questions, and the most important question of all, who does the money really belong to? The Multiple-Party Account Act provides that: “A joint account belongs, during the lifetime of all parties, to the parties in proportion to the net contributions by each to the sum of the deposit, unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a different intent.”

The answer to the $64,000 question of “who’s money is it” is, simply provided by the Act--each party, in the amounts of their contribution to the account, over the life-time of the account. So, just because a party can use the money in a joint account, remember, they may not be able to.  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you are anything like me, when you hear the phrase "custody battle" you first think of two people who used to love each other now locked in a grim struggle over children and, occasionally, pets.  True, but only so far as it goes.  The Superior Court (.pdf) has reminded us that custody battles can also arise in connection with disposition of the dead -- in this case, cremated remains:

The Superior Court has ruled that trial courts have the authority to order the division of cremated remains where the loved ones are in a dispute, in what appeared to be an issue of first impression for the court.

But in the case over the disposition of a divorcing couple’s deceased son’s remains, the court found that the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County had abused its discretion in ordering the division of ashes in Kulp v. Kulp.

As a result, the court remanded the case back to the trial court.

“Given the extremely sensitive nature of this issue, and husband’s opposition to division of the remains, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in using its equitable powers to override the desires of one of the next of kin as to the division of son’s remains,” Judge John L. Musmanno wrote for the panel.

. . .

When the trial court ordered that the ashes be placed in two separate urns with each party keeping their urn at the place of their choosing, David Kulp Jr. appealed to the Superior Court.

Hmmm.  Could there be a more clear cut candidate for application of the maxim "Equity is not for the squeamish?"  (h/t How Appealing).  And don't think for a minute this is the only custody battle involving the Dead.  It is not.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks