M.L. v D.W.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Donor, an elderly woman in her mid-80s, executed an Enduring Power of Attorney on 20th July 2012 appointing her daughter (the Attorney) to manage her affairs. The Donor suffered a stroke in 2006 and was thereafter cared for primarily by the Attorney, who maintained a close and supportive relationship with her. The Donor lived in a house in Dublin until health reasons necessitated her move to a nursing home in County Louth in mid-2015.

The Donor’s son (the Objector) objected to the registration of the Enduring Power of Attorney pursuant to section 10 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996. The objection arose largely from the Attorney’s decision to sell the Donor’s family home, which the Objector opposed, preferring that the property be retained and let. The Attorney justified the sale on grounds including the house being vacant, subject to break-ins, and the need to fund the shortfall in nursing home care costs.

Medical evidence indicated that at the time of execution of the Enduring Power of Attorney, the Donor had the mental capacity to understand the document. Later medical assessments confirmed the Donor suffered from severe cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s Dementia, rendering her incapable of managing her affairs, supporting the need to register and enact the power.

The Objector initially raised multiple objections, including invalidity of the power and unsuitability of the Attorney, but ultimately limited his objection to the Attorney’s suitability, focusing on the decision to sell the house. The dispute involved family tensions and differing views on the management of the Donor’s assets under the Nursing Home Support Scheme (the Fair Deal Scheme).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Attorney is unsuitable to act under the Enduring Power of Attorney within the meaning of section 10(3)(d) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996.
2. Whether the decision to sell the Donor’s family home renders the Attorney unsuitable to act.

Arguments of the Parties

Objector's Arguments

• The Attorney is unsuitable to act, primarily due to her decision to sell the Donor’s family home.
• The house should be retained and let, preserving the asset and benefiting the Donor’s financial position under the Fair Deal Scheme.
• Alleged procedural irregularities regarding notice of registration and handling of the Donor’s affairs.
• Initial allegations that the Donor lacked capacity and was coerced were withdrawn.

Attorney's Arguments

• The decision to sell was reasonable given the house was vacant, had been broken into, and incurred significant maintenance costs.
• The sale was necessary to fund the shortfall in nursing home care costs, approximately €1,000 per month.
• The Donor understood and agreed to the sale to the extent she was capable.
• Letting the property would entail legal obligations and risks, including tenant rights and tax implications, which supported the decision to sell.
• The Attorney acted properly and kept family members informed as far as possible.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the evidence concerning the Donor’s mental capacity at the time of executing the Enduring Power of Attorney, finding that the Donor fully understood the document and acted voluntarily. Allegations of coercion and incapacity were withdrawn and unsupported.

The court considered the Objector’s contention that the Attorney’s decision to sell the family home rendered her unsuitable. It analysed the relevant statutory provision, section 10(3)(d) of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996, which permits objection on grounds of attorney unsuitability.

Relying on precedent, particularly In Re Hamilton, the court emphasized that unsuitability must be demonstrated by more than lack of business skill or mere disagreement over financial decisions. The threshold for objection is high and requires evidence of conduct detrimental to the donor’s interests.

The court acknowledged the practical and financial reasons for selling the house, including its vacancy, security issues, maintenance costs, and the necessity to fund nursing home care due to a monthly shortfall. It also noted the risks and burdens associated with letting the property.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded that the Attorney’s decision was reasonable, responsible, and made with the Donor’s interests in mind. The preference of the Objector for letting the property did not invalidate the Attorney’s choice nor render her unsuitable.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the objection and directed the registration of the Enduring Power of Attorney.

The decision confirms that an attorney’s reasonable financial management decisions, even if contested by family members, do not necessarily amount to unsuitability under section 10 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1996. The ruling directly affects the parties by permitting the Attorney to continue acting under the Enduring Power of Attorney and to proceed with the management of the Donor’s affairs, including the sale of the family home. No new legal precedent beyond the application of existing principles was established.