A recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case, Conkin as Administrator of Estate of Mattie L. Mettetal v. Ray W. Mettetal, Jr., M.D., discusses a Power of Attorney and his alleged misappropriation of his mother’s funds before her death.
Mattie Mettetal had a devastating stroke, which left her without any ability to speak, write or care for herself in any way. Her son had been granted a Power of Attorney for his mother prior to the stroke, and after the stroke, he went on a spending spree that amounted to tens of thousands of dollars of funds for his personal benefit. On appeal, Dr. Mettetal attempted to argue those funds were used as gifts under Tennessee law.
In Tennessee, a Power of Attorney (POA) owes a duty to the other party “in the utmost good faith.” Estate of Doyle v. Hunt, 60 S.W.3d 838 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Alexander v. Inman, 974 S.W.2d 689 (Tenn. 1998); McFarlin v. McFarlin, 785 S.W.2d 367 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989). Dr. Mettetal nevertheless attempted to invoke Tenn. Code Ann. 34-6-110, Gifts under power of attorney:
(a) If any power of attorney or other writing:
(1) Authorizes an attorney-in-fact or other agent to do, execute or perform any act that the principal might or could do; or
(2) Evidences the principal’s intent to give the attorney-in-fact or agent full power to handle the principal’s affairs or to deal with the principal’s property;then the attorney-in-fact or agent shall have the power and authority to make gifts, in any amount, of any of the principal’s property, to any individuals, or to organizations described in §§ 170(c) and 2522(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. §§ 170 and 2522), or corresponding future provisions of the federal tax law, or both, in accordance with the principal’s personal history of making or joining in the making of lifetime gifts. This section shall not in any way limit the right or power of any principal, by express words in the power of attorney or other writing, to authorize, or limit the authority of, any attorney-in-fact or other agent to make gifts of the principal’s property.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 34-6-110(a) (2015).
Dr. Mettetal was provided for by his mother as he re-gained his medical licensure (after being arrested, convicted, imprisoned, and then released by an appellate court). But once the medical licensure was re-attained there was no need for additional gifting. Likewise, the Court found that once there was a stroke, the continued need to care for the mother and gift monies was unnecessary. Accordingly, the appellate court found that Dr. Mettetal misappropriated funds, converted funds and acted improperly.