suing someone that has given LPA to someone else

[sealeysb21]

Dorris has gave LPA (lasting power of attorney)*to her children Fred and Freda, not sure if Freda still has it or if it has been revoked. If both children still have it they can act independently of each other.
Dorris is in hospital.
Solicitor sends "court papers" to Dorris's home address
Fred lives with Dorris.
Freda cannot act for Dorris as conflict of interest.
If Freda was to act for Dorris the agreement would mean Dorris is not taken to court but Fred would be effected


Two questions

As Dorris is in hospital does LPA automatically come into force?

If it does and Fred does nothing or decides to fight in court and in both cases court rules against Dorris/Fred and awards costs to other party, does Dorris pay or does Fred pay?

If court rules against Dorris/Fred then Fred again is effected in the same way as above but now may also have a court injunction against him.

thank you


sealeysb21

[ukcommando]

It sounds like there's more to this than the overview you gave. If the holder of a LPA (the attorney) acts on behalf of the donor, it's still the donor that's being subjected to legal action, not the attorney, and any judgement is against the donor not the attorney. So in your example, it's still Dorris who pays if the case is lost. It's no different to engaging a conventional solicitor to fight a case on your behalf, if they lose, you're still the one who pays, not the solicitor! Similarly any judgement (or injunction as you describe it) would be against Dorris, not Freda or Fred.
In the case of LPA's, the attorney's responsibility is simply to act in the donors best interests by doing what they believe the donor would have wanted. Provided they don't act according to their own beliefs and at odds with what the donor would have wished (if they had mental capacity), there shouldn't be a problem.

[sealeysb21]

It sounds like there's more to this than the overview you gave. If the holder of a LPA (the attorney) acts on behalf of the donor, it's still the donor that's being subjected to legal action, not the attorney, and any judgement is against the donor not the attorney. So in your example, it's still Dorris who pays if the case is lost. It's no different to engaging a conventional solicitor to fight a case on your behalf, if they lose, you're still the one who pays, not the solicitor! Similarly any judgement (or injunction as you describe it) would be against Dorris, not Freda or Fred.
In the case of LPA's, the attorney's responsibility is simply to act in the donors best interests by doing what they believe the donor would have wanted. Provided they don't act according to their own beliefs and at odds with what the donor would have wished (if they had mental capacity), there shouldn't be a problem.

Thank you for the reply

Fred has LPA, Dorris is in hospital. Dorris may never get to know about court if fred does not open her post and if he does, does nothing or decides to fight onbehalf of Dorris but does not tell her.

Fred is the son of Dorris.

from what you say above, Dorris would still have to pay, is that right?

Fred may act for his own interests and not that of Dorris. How would that effect things?

If case goes against dorris an injunction against fred would be sought as well as perhaps dorris.

Freda is not the target of court proceedings and has clean hands, no axe to grind with Freda.

who would decide if fred has the mental capacity to act? if fred does not what happens, Freda cant act as conflict of interest

sealeysb21




no idea why the A* appears