The High Court dismissed objections to registering an enduring power of attorney appointing H.B. to manage his mother’s affairs, finding that his siblings had not proved he was unsuitable or that he pressured their mother to sign it.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 8 November 2016 that the instrument, executed on 7 February 2014, should be registered. He also directed H.B. to provide accounts and records of his management of the donor’s estate to solicitors for the objectors, G.B. and M.B., and to continue doing so annually.
The siblings had argued that a serious breakdown in family relations made H.B. unsuitable and that he had exerted subtle pressure on their mother. They cited disputes over their late aunt’s estate and a company’s accounting work, conflict following a family meeting about their mother’s care, changed locks at her home and their limited contact with her afterwards. They also raised concerns about the donor’s reliance on H.B. and the steps leading to the power of attorney.
H.B. denied the allegations. The judgment records that the court could not determine whose account was accurate on the disputed family incidents or whether the criticisms of his work were well founded. It did find that relations between the siblings had seriously broken down, as had relations between the objectors and their mother.
Applying the approach in Re W., the judge said hostility would make an attorney unsuitable only if it adversely affected administration of the donor’s estate. He considered the estate relatively straightforward: the Rath, Co. Kerry property had been sold, and its proceeds were expected to fund nursing-home care for about eight years. The Dublin house was in the late husband’s name and might fall to be dealt with as part of his estate.
The judge accepted H.B.’s evidence that he had not tried to prevent contact and that the objectors had had no meaningful contact with their mother since February 2014. He also accepted solicitor Michael O’Dwyer’s evidence that the donor understood the instrument and was not acting under undue pressure. The judgment records that O’Dwyer met her alone during consultations and that independent witnesses had not seen H.B. pressure or mistreat her.
The court said the attorney received no beneficial interest in the donor’s estate under the instrument and would have to account for his management. It dismissed both grounds of objection and ordered accounts covering 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2016 by 31 January 2017, followed by annual accounts by 31 January for each preceding calendar year. The parties were given liberty to apply to the court over disputes about management or failures to provide the records.