South Carolina's highest court holds that an attorney who represented an attorney-in-fact did not owe a duty of care to the principal of the power of attorney. Argoe v. Three Rivers Behavioral Center (S.C., No. 26844, July 26, 2010).
Martha Argoe's husband, Lewis Argoe, and her son and attorney-in-fact, G. Lewis Argoe, hired attorney James Walsh, Jr. to help them protect Mrs. Argoe from her own erratic and irresponsible financial behaviors. They claimed that, among other things, Mrs. Argoe had secretly taken out a loan against a condominium she owned and had allowed it to lapse into default. Mr. Walsh assisted the son in using his power of attorney to transfer ownership of the condominium to a trust for Mrs. Argoe's benefit.
Mrs. Argoe sued Mr. Walsh, arguing that she had an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Walsh because her son was acting as her attorney-in-fact in the real estate transaction. She claimed that Mr. Walsh breached duties he owed to her by transferring title of the property without her knowledge. Concluding that Mrs. Argoe was not Mr. Walsh's client and that he owed her no duties in this case, the trial court granted Mr. Walsh's motion for summary judgment. Mrs. Argoe appealed.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirms the grant of summary judgment, holding that because Mr. Walsh represented Mrs. Argoe's son in the real estate transaction, not Mrs. Argoe, the only duty of care Mr. Walsh owed was to the son. Noting the beneficial purpose of a durable power of attorney to protect the infirm from their own infirmities, the court opined that "[t]he fact that an infirm principal of a durable power of attorney does not appreciate an action taken by an attorney-in-factdoes not create liability for the attorney facilitating a transaction that is called into question."
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
