The Court of Appeals of Virginia upholds the decision of a lower court in a case concerning the Uniform Power of Attorney Act. In Doris Williams v. Carl Boggess, Esquire in His Capacity as Agent for Margarett Ward (Va. Ct. App. No. 0600-23-3, April 9, 2024).
Margarett Ward executed a durable power of attorney and named attorney Carl Boggess as her agent. For over a decade Mr. Boggess acted as Ms. Ward’s agent, managing her affairs and finances. During this period, Doris Williams, Ms. Ward’s niece, began to suspect that Mr. Boggess was mismanaging Ms. Ward’s assets.
Ms. Williams filed a petition in the Bedford Circuit Court under Code § 64.2-1614(A)(5) to obtain a statutory accounting of her aunt’s finances. One of several accusations Ms. Williams made was that Mr. Boggess mishandled Ms. Ward’s funds, causing Ms. Ward to be transferred from a private nursing home to a Medicaid-funded nursing home. Ms. Williams also expressed her concern that there were no longer sufficient funds to pay for Ms. Ward’s funeral and burial expenses.
The trial court dismissed Ms. Williams’ first petition because it did not have sufficient factual allegations to grant the petition. Ms. Williams filed an amended petition, but Ms. Ward died while it was pending before the court.
Ms. Williams filed a second amended petition with additional allegations to support the claim that Mr. Boggess had violated his fiduciary duty to Ms. Ward, causing a loss of at least $100,000. Ms. Williams sought an order from the court to force Mr. Boggess to provide various financial records to her. During a hearing on this amended petition, Ms. Williams testified and both parties presented arguments.
During the hearing, Ms. Williams was questioned about her interest in this matter. Williams stated that she was pursuing discovery for the “relief” and “satisfaction” of knowing her aunt had been “put away like she had asked.” Mr. Boggess argued that Ms. Ward was a “very private person” and that she would not want “anybody to know her affairs.” Ms. Williams contended that, as Ms. Ward’s niece, she was entitled to an accounting of Ms. Ward’s finances.
The court acknowledged that even though Ms. Williams, as Ms. Ward’s niece, was able to seek discovery under Code § 64.2-1614(A)(5), the court had discretion to grant or deny the petition after considering the interests of Ward and her estate. The court denied Ms. Williams’ petition for discovery because it believed she did not have sufficient interest in the matter.
In Ms. Williams’ appeal, she argued that her quest for relief and the satisfaction of knowing that her aunt’s affairs had been handled properly qualified as sufficient interest. She also argued that the trial court abused its discretion by relying on improper factors, chiefly, that she had not demonstrated sufficient interest in her aunt’s financial matters as well as the assertion that her aunt was inclined to privacy in her financial affairs.
The appeals court determined that the lower court acted properly when it considered Ms. Williams’ interest in the outcome of the accounting of Ms. Ward’s finances. The appeals court also determined that the lower court was right to consider Ms. Ward’s established disposition as a “private person” and that she entrusted Mr. Boggess with her financial matters. Regarding Williams’ argument that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her a statutory accounting, the appeals court determined that no improper factors were considered by the court.
In conclusion, the appeals court affirms the trial court’s judgment since it found that the trial court properly considered Ms. Ward’s interests and the interests of her estate. Additionally, the appeals court finds no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
