BILL ANALYSIS SB 1038 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 15, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Mike Feuer, Chair SB 1038 (Harman) - As Amended: April 26, 2010 PROPOSED CONSENT SENATE VOTE : 31-0 SUBJECT : POWER OF ATTORNEY: REMEDIES KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE CURRENT EXEMPTION SHIELDING AN ATTORNEY-IN-FACT FROM LIABILITY FOR LOSSES TO THE PRINCIPAL'S PROPERTY WHEN THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT IS UNCOMPENSATED BE ELIMINATED TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE REMEDIES EXIST FOR BREACHES OF DUTY BY ATTORNEYS-IN- FACT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE COMPENSATED FOR THEIR SERVICES? FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed non-fiscal. SYNOPSIS This non-controversial bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Associations (CCBA). The Power of Attorney Law creates various duties and requires an attorney-in-fact to observe the standard of care that would be observed by a prudent person dealing with property of another, or if an attorney-in-fact has special skills he or she shall observe the standard of care that would be observed by others with similar skills. However, existing law provides that an attorney-in-fact is not liable for a loss to the principal's property if he or she is not compensated, unless the loss results from his or her bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or gross negligence. This bill would delete this provision. The bill would provide that if the attorney-in-fact breaches a duty pursuant to the Power of Attorney Law he or she can hereafter be charged with interest for any loss or depreciation in value of the property, any profit made through the breach, or any profit that would have accrued to the principal if the loss or profit is a result of the breach. The bill would allow the court, in its discretion, to excuse the attorney-in-fact if he or she acted reasonably and in good faith, or if the attorney-in-fact acted in bad faith, he or she can be held liable for twice the value of the property SB 1038 Page 2 recovered. There is no known opposition to the measure. SUMMARY : Seeks to delete existing law's exemption providing that an attorney-in-fact is not liable for losses to the principal's property when the attorney-in-fact is not compensated. Specifically, this bill : 1)Provides that a non-compensated attorney-in-fact will be held liable for breaches of duty, regardless of whether the breach was made in bad-faith or error. 2)Authorizes the court, in its discretion, to excuse the attorney-in-fact from liability if the attorney-in-fact acted reasonably and in good faith under the circumstances known to the attorney-in-fact. 3)Provides that an attorney-in-fact may be held liable for twice the value of the property recovered by an action to recover the property or for surcharge. EXISTING LAW : 1)Provides that a principal can grant to an attorney-in-fact the authority to act on the principal's behalf regarding the principal's real or personal property. (Probate Code Section 4123. Hereafter all such references are to this code unless otherwise noted.) 2)Provides that a designated attorney-in-fact has no duty to exercise the authority granted in the power of attorney and is not subject to the other duties of an attorney-in-fact, regardless of whether the principal has become incapacitated, is missing, or is otherwise unable to act. (Section 4230.) 3)Provides that if an attorney-in-fact is not compensated, the attorney-in-fact is not liable for a loss to the principal's property unless the loss results from the attorney-in-fact's bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, or gross negligence. (Section 4231.) COMMENTS : In support the author writes: There has been a sharp increase in recent years of predators acting under Powers of Attorney who are stealing money and property from disabled adults or the elderly. SB 1038 Page 3 Attorneys-in-fact are entrusted with enormous power and should be held accountable when they breach [their] duties or fail to adhere to the standards set forth in the Probate Code. However, there is no specific provision in the Probate Code that sets forth the liability for attorneys-in-fact who breach their statutory, legal and/or fiduciary duties under the code, or which addresses the enhanced liability of an attorney-in-fact who knowingly or wrongfully misappropriates the monies of the principal. . . . Current law provides a presumption against liability for uncompensated attorneys, but provides no definition or guidance as to what constitutes 'compensation' under the meaning of the statute. A frequent example of how the problem occurs in real life is where the attorney in fact does not receive regular payment for his or her services, but there are numerous cash withdrawals that cannot be accounted for, or unsupported "reimbursements" to the agent. A contrary example is the good friend who accepts de minimus or in-kind compensation (e.g., meals) in return for the assistance he or she provides or to offset a sacrifice he or she has made; it seems inapposite to hold such a person to the same standard as a professional fiduciary. SB 1038 would remove this confusing and exploitable distinction, and instead leave it to the court to determine the proper standard of liability. The Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar supports the bill since it "provides a means to protect agents under powers of attorney from liability in appropriate cases by giving courts discretion to excuse the attorney-in-fact in whole or in part from liability." A power of attorney is executed by someone (the principal) who designates a legal representative (his or her agent) to act on his or her behalf. This legal mechanism is particularly useful during estate planning; the principal can designate who will make legal decisions on his/her behalf if the principal becomes incapacitated or unable to make decisions. Although the principal can provide for compensation of an attorney-in-fact, there is a statutory presumption of good faith and a resulting exemption from liability for attorneys-in-fact who are not compensated. Accordingly, trusts and estates attorneys are reporting an unfortunate increase in predatory attorneys-in-fact SB 1038 Page 4 agreeing to serve on behalf of the principal without compensation - and then skimming large sums of money from the principal's estate. This bill is intended to provide protections for principals and their beneficiaries from predatory attorneys-in-fact by removing non-compensatory attorney-in-fact exemptions and providing circumstances under which attorneys-in-fact will be held accountable for breaches of duty. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION : Support Conference of California Bar Associations Trusts and Estates Section of the State Bar Opposition None on file Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334