The Connecticut Supreme Court recently upheld a decision requiring Lisa Charette to provide an accounting of her actions as attorney-in-fact for her mother, Mary E. Bachand. This ruling impacts individuals serving as attorneys-in-fact, particularly in cases involving incapacitated persons, and clarifies the jurisdiction of Probate Courts in such matters.
The case, known as In the Matter of Mary E. Bachand (SC18827), began when Charette was named as the successor attorney-in-fact for her mother after the death of her father, Rene H. Bachand. Mary, who suffered from progressive Alzheimer's disease, was moved to a long-term care facility in West Hartford, Connecticut, where she received care from April 2008 until December 2009. In September 2008, Charette's sister, Cheryl Miller-Gray, petitioned the Probate Court for an accounting of Charette's actions as attorney-in-fact.
The Probate Court initially decided against appointing an auditor but ordered Charette to file an accounting of her activities from July 2007 to November 2008. Charette appealed this decision, arguing that the Probate Court lacked jurisdiction and that her sister did not have standing to request the accounting.
In its ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that the Probate Court had jurisdiction under General Statutes § 45a-175 (b) because Mary resided in West Hartford at the time of the petition. The court clarified that the term "resides" does not require the grantor of a power of attorney to have the intent to remain in that location. Instead, it simply means where the person actually lives.
The court ruled, "the term 'resides,' as employed in § 45a-175 (b), unambiguously means the place where a person actually lives regardless of her intention to remain there."
Furthermore, the court stated that Miller-Gray had standing to petition for the accounting as the only remaining successor attorney-in-fact after their father's death. The court emphasized that the statute did not necessitate a showing of cause for the Probate Court to order an accounting.
Justice Norcott, along with Justices Rogers, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh, and Harper, concurred in the ruling. The court's decision highlights the authority of Probate Courts to oversee the actions of attorneys-in-fact and reinforces the rights of successor attorneys-in-fact to seek accountability.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals acting as attorneys-in-fact, particularly in cases involving incapacitated persons. It establishes that the Probate Court has the jurisdiction to require accountings without needing a showing of cause, which may encourage greater oversight and transparency in the management of an incapacitated person's affairs.
Moving forward, this decision may influence future cases involving powers of attorney and the responsibilities of those acting in such capacities. It underscores the importance of accountability in fiduciary relationships, particularly when vulnerable individuals are involved.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling is final unless further legal grounds arise. There are no related cases pending that could directly challenge this decision at this time.