The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed a circuit court’s ruling that a trust agreement created under the authority of a power of attorney (POA) was void ab initio. The POA stated that it would become effective only when the principal’s disability was confirmed in writing by her physician. There was no evidence of such a writing. Doolin v. Owen, No. 2023-CA-1457-MR, No. 2025-CA-0148-MR (Ky. Ct. App. July 18, 2025).
In 2015, Linda Miller executed a general POA stating that it would become effective only upon her disability as confirmed by her personal physician in writing and would be considered a durable POA pursuant to Kentucky statute. She was later declared partially disabled in managing her personal affairs and wholly disabled in managing her financial affairs. In 2017, Linda’s attorney established a trust agreement naming Marcy Doolin as the beneficiary, purportedly under the authority of the POA. Linda died in September 2022.
Marcy filed a petition in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the validity and enforceability of her rights under the trust. David Owen, the administrator of Linda’s estate, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The circuit court determined that the 2015 POA was never triggered because the record did not show that Linda’s physician had confirmed her disability in writing. As a result, the trust was void ab initio. The circuit court granted David’s motion to dismiss. It also denied Marcy’s motion for postjudgment relief based on newly discovered evidence. Marcy appealed.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals determined that the issue of whether the 2015 POA was triggered was a contract issue. Because Linda’s personal physician had not confirmed her disability in writing as required by the contract at issue—the 2015 POA—there was no evidence that the circuit court was incorrect in finding that the trust agreement created and funded under its authority was void ab initio. Further, Marcy’s other arguments lacked preservation or sufficient explanation or were unpersuasive.
The court also agreed with the circuit court’s denial of Marcy’s postjudgment motions that relied on newly discovered evidence: a 2017 MRI report and a report by another physician establishing that Linda was disabled when the trust agreement was created. The court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the 2015 POA was a springing power of attorney that became effective only upon Linda’s disability, as confirmed in writing by her personal physician, and that the subsequent reports Marcy relied on did not meet the springing condition set forth in the POA. As a result, it affirmed the circuit court orders.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
