[emphasis added]I used to think this too - sign a POA and essentially give someone else power over everything and give up your own. It’s not the case. A POA empowers another to act for her as agent. But if the person lacks legal capacity that’s another matter. When the individual and their agent conflict, yes the individual can revoke the POA.
A Durable POA specifically allows the POA to continue through incapacity. So what is it about "another matter"?
I don't think a POA takes any powers *away* from the person, and ordinarily that isn't what it's for. It's so there will be someone else to "take over" if the person cannot/will not do it themselves. That could be due to incapacity, or if the person is just unavailable OR just doesn't want to deal with those issues.
Where is a POA defined as not allowing the person to do <whatever> on their own, if competent?
For example, late MIL gave DH a DPOA quite a few years before she really needed to do so. And then at a certain age, when she was still very competent, she just announce that in her mid-90's, "... I don't want to have anything to do with finances anymore, so you do it all, please". The paperwork was already in place, so he just stepped in to help.
IANAL, but I thought that the conservatorship was for situations when the person already is incapaciated and couldn''t select a DPOA (or springing power) and hadn't already selected one... or some legal process determined it would not be in their best interests, etc.
I suppose IF the person argued with the agent and it was thought to be NOT in their own best interests, then perhaps it would be time for a conservatorship or guardianship?
RM
Statistics: Posted by ResearchMed — Tue Sep 24, 2024 8:38 pm — Replies 42 — Views 2649