Talk:Power of attorney

Comment regarding attorney in fact versus attorney at law

Dear fellow editors: I deleted the language in the first paragraph of the article regarding a signature in connection with the filing of a suit. It's not that the language is technically incorrect -- it's just that it might be misleading to some people. At least in the United States, a person who is an attorney in fact could legally sign documents (such as pleadings) for a plaintiff in a lawsuit -- but generally only if the attorney in fact also happens to be licensed as an attorney at law (a lawyer). Yours, Famspear 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a question if someone came sick where they wer unable to speak and i havve doctors reports stating that he is mentally incapable of making any decisions...but he has not appointed any kind of power of attornery and his ex owns half the house and she is the same but the man is laying on his death bed and the family would like power of attorney hopw about do i go abouts getting power of attorney so i can pay his biolls on his house and his business i dont want him to lose his house or anything but the courts are not helping how do i get power of attorney if i am his mother please email me at supdgrlcutie@hotmail.com thank you very much help is needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.209.8 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Error

Saw this grammatical error, and I wasn't sure how to clear it up.

"However, such as asking someone else to sign your name on a check because your arm is broken—or may be in writing."

I didn't want to edit out any pertinent information, so if someone else knows more, feel free.

UK legislation

Does anyone have a good link for details of the UK Powers of Attorney Act 1971? Only acts since 1988 seem to be on the www.parliament.uk web site. — User:PhilHibbs | 15:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legislation.gov.uk site has now caught up with history. Eteb3 (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from main page

I removed the following form the main page while cleaning up:

[1]UK Government Public Guardianship Office - Clear explanation of the process by the office that manages Enduring Power of Attorney

Note: Enduring Power of Attorney is to be replaced with Lasting Power of Attorney in October 2007

Since it doesn't actually provide information, just pushes people to another website. I moved it here in the hope someone would like to use it to write a section (if the link is in fact good). -- Siobhan Hansa 13:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Attorney end date?

If someone has gotten a General Power of Attorney done and it was notorized. Is the General Power of Attorney still good after the Notary's expiration date? Example, John Doe pens a General Power of Attorney to Jane Doe dated and signed Jan 1, 1994 and it is Notarized by Jack Smith, whose commission ends on Dec 31, 1995. Ten years later, Jane Doe is financially strapped, has divorced John Doe, but has a copy of a deed of property that is in John Doe's name. Can she in effect, sell the property using the General Power of Attorney as long as nothing was done to revoke it? Or does it expire with the Notary's commission?

If I'm not mistaken, it does not expire with the Notary's commission. Nothing a Notary does while commissioned expires at the end unless it's explicitly stated. krikkert (Talk) 17:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific power of attorney, which is created for a purpose shall lapse after completing the subject matter of the POA. In the case of general power of attorney shall become invalid on demise of the principal or donner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.90.179 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: October 2008

"These came into being in October 2008" probably should be October 2007 based on the footnote

power of attorney medical

what if Mom is critically ill and the person who is on the power of attorney over her medical wants her to stay alive, but 5 other family members want to let her go as she is not getting better but and she is getting worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.81.185.35 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

power of attorney on a piece of paper notarized

what if i have a father who is unable to care for himself writes on a piece of paper that he wants a girl 20 years younger than him to be his power of attorney, was notarized, on a thursday and then on friday is in critical care. now family is not allowed to visit per his new power attorney. Is that power of attorney legal, when my sister already had power of attorney.144.230.191.52 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of correction made to Irish Law section

I am an Irish lawyer, and I corrected the references to Irish law yesterday. Someone has stupidly reverted it to the previous incorrect version.

It is not correct that Irish law only recognises a general power of attorney or an enduring power. As I corrected the text to say, you can also give a specific power of attorney - a limited power to do one or more specific acts.

Please do not revert my change made to the previous incorrect version.

Michael of Lucan (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signing documents as fiduciary

I have power of attorney for an elderly relative, Jane Smith. I am told that to sign documents for her, I sign with my own name, followed by "Agent for Jane Smith." This is in Pennsylvania. If it is generally true, it would be useful to include the information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.63.66 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power of Attorney vs. Bank

I have some questions for anyone who may be able to assist me with NY/NJ law regarding power of attorney. My parents who now reside in NJ had a power of attorney drawn up in the state of New Jersey by an attorney. The attorney witnessed the signatures which to my understanding makes it a legal document. There isn't a raised seal on it. From my understanding, in order for it to be a legal document in NJ it either has to be witnessed by two individuals, or notorized, or witnessed by a person of authority (which would be the attorney).

I presented the POA to a bank in NY and the bank refused it stating: 1. it does not have a seal; 2. it was not notorized; 2. it is over seven years old and it could be revoked.

My questions are, is the bank correct in refusing it, and why? How would any one find out if a POA was revoked? If the POA is considered too old and possibly revoked, then why should anyone do estate "planning"? I would appreciate any input.

Thanks

Mflem31742 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

text cut/pasted from internet site?

It looks like the bulk of the text in the 'types of power of attorney' section was cut/pasted from http://free-power-of-attorney-forms.com/. The text matches word for word for paragraphs at a stretch. While a lot of sites lift their text from Wikipedia, this site says, "All rights reserved 2004-2009" at the bottom. Does that mean it went the other way round? Thoughts? Nothingofwater (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked into this? --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Removal

I disagree with a recent edit removing references included on the PoA wiki page. Nothing about citing neutral and accurate third party sources (see here and here for removed references) constitutes spam. The information cited in the wiki page is taken directly from these sites and conforms to Wikipedia's policies (see item #3 @ WP:ELYES). It's unethical to include this information without citing the source and goes against Wikipedia's policy on verifiability (see Wikipedia:FOC).

I'm open to a discussion though. However, please reference in this discussion the specific Wikipedia provision (not a broad spam policy) if you dispute their appropriateness. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin20122012 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL doesn't apply to references. WP:SPAM, especially WP:REFSPAM, appears to apply in this case. The site is promotional, self-published, and not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you my reasoning, I actually read WP:REFSPAM prior to posting the links and believed that it qualified under #2 of WP:REFSPAM. The reality is, there is no good original material online regarding power of attorney documents, primarily because attorneys and/or other experts are reluctant to publish actually informative material (online or not) for fear of being sued for giving improper or inaccurate legal advice (just look at this talk page to see the sheer number of people looking for free legal advice and the pitfalls that lie therein). The reference that I posted is the only one I can find that accurately discusses this material in a manner that is accessible to the non-technical expert (an aspect which had been flagged as lacking on this page). Quite honestly there is no other source I can find (other than explaining it myself using no references --> law student here) that does this. Even the Capacity (law) page is woefully lacking in both accuracy and actual references.

Regardless, one of the reasons I started editing this page is because it covered its subject so poorly and with so few sources that, in my opinion, it actually misled the average reader. I'm new to Wikipedia but this is something I hope to do in the long term (I really care about this subject); and I don't want to get banned by you admin guys, so I'll leave these references out. However, unless I hear otherwise in the next day or so, I'm removing the material that I culled from the reference, as I don't feel it's right to take information from a source and not properly cite it.

Thanks for the clarification. If you have any further thoughts or guidance, please let me know. --Justin20122012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Let's move on then.

If we can't find reliable sources, then the information doesn't belong. I don't know my way around legal publishing as much as I'd like, but I'd guess there are publications available, just not easily accessible. I'd guess that Nolo.com has something we could use. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nolo.com is just as unreliable and unverifiable. They sell forms as well. See [[2]]. Unfortunately, that's just the reality of sources in this area. So do I remove all these references or keep them?

It has commercial aspects, but it's a notable, professionally done site. Given some of your other link contributions, there appears to be a conflict of interest issue with addition of "<legalmatter>help.com" sites. I checked the WHOIS ownership records and it indicates that the owner of powerofattorneyhelp.com owns similar sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These designations are capricious. I had heard this stuff happens on here but am disappointed that it's so prevalent. I had hoped to curate this page and make it better but this is way too difficult and frustrating. I'm taking the cited material out. Best of luck with your pages you cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin20122012 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 9 June 2011

We use reliable sources here. Nolo has been found to be a reliable source, so I suggested it as way to move on quickly. --Ronz (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sooooo, in my random late night wikipedia surfing I somehow came across this page and wanted to throw in my two cents as an attorney.... I actually agree with Justin, and here's why - if you look at the bottom of the pages in question you'll see that the company that published the page is registered and bonded as a legal document assistant in Los Angeles County. I'm way too lazy to get into the specifics of what a legal document assistant is so for the purposes of this discussion I'll classify it, very broadly, as an independant paralegal. Here's the thing though - by law, anything that a legal document assistant distributes or publishes has to be either approved by or written by an attorney. It seems to me that any material approved or written by an attorney and backed up by a bond filed with a county clerk is going to be pretty reliable for wikipedia's standards, espcially when you consider the whole malpractice thing :-) ... Anyway, like I said, just wanted to add my late-night two cents! :-) Stephie 99.162.78.45 (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, i agree too with Stephie and i've worked in the legal field for 10+ years. Plus Nolo doesn't even have that LDA cert - so how would they be more reliable?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.4.4 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the reference once again. Should it be blacklisted? --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gave the IP (who I presume is the original link adder) a final warning. Will blacklist if it appears again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, that will be the end of it. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz I got your talk regarding the Removing of link..Which site I shared is relevant to the Wiki Content according to me.As I also see that a similar site has already been referenced please check "Cite 13"..The site I shared is also relevant and similar to the above mentioned article..Please tell me the guidelines to get this link referenced there.I very well know that Wiki external links are NoFollow i dont need Link juice I want people to go and check the website if it catches their interest.I hope you tell me what is wrong with the site as the "Cite 13" , "Cite 12" ,"Cite 11" are providing the same type of service which the site i referenced. Infact for your notice if you have taken the trouble to remove my link and send me a message explaining how Spam on wikipedia is considered..you should have also taken the trouble of checking "Cite 7" which is goin to a Page Not Found Site,"Cite 8" , "Cite 11" are pointing to the same site..U owe me an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hefind (talk • contribs) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those links should be reviewed and removed if they fail WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking for help with. If you're asking how to re-add your promotional link, then I cannot help you. If you're actually interested in improving the article by adding sourced prose or reviewing references instead of promoting your commercial interests, then follow the advice Ronz has left you. Kuru (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru hi , thanks for your reply...I am not trying to promote the website as it is not mine..I am from India..and the Page which I came across was somewhere in the United States..I had shared the link because i taught it would also be handy ..as some of the above links were offering the same thing for more $$$ than what i saw..i dont even want to add those links now..as i dont know how Wiki pedia works as I think it is completely bais and i think that you editors are getting paid by those sites to add their reffernce as i see their links still on the page even though I pointed out they are commercial and are promoted on this page...Hefind (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please stop adding promotional links and copyright violations. Kuru (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what copyright violations did u find in my post which you deleted?? also you did not answer if u find the link i posted as promotional you did not tell me the reasons why the other links i pointed are not removed or considered as promotional links as i think you are paid by those website owners to not let any other links come there apart from theirs..115.240.59.36 (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

one last thing to add how much do u want to allow me to add more genuine links other than these?How much do i pay you for each links..let people know that u editors are bunch of money hungry people who want to earn from an Non-Profit organization..good way to make some extra bucks from those websites whose links you have kept on the article even after me pointing it out to be similar sites to which i had linked..the points which i had pointed out are clearly Commercial and promotional..Hefind (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior isn't validated by other improper information. Stop adding your site or you will be blocked.

Thanks for pointing out the other problematic information. Someone will get around to reviewing it and cleaning it up. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For my links you took hardly 2-3 hours to delete it..these links which i have pointed out are still on the site..so does it mean that the contract period of those links are not yet completed and hence after the completion of the contract period you would remove the other links..does it really take so long for you to validate those links which I pointed out..The site which I added was clearly a similar site to those which are above..and dont keep on telling me that the site is mine..i told you already you can check the whois data and other information and see that the site is not mine...i too am running a couple of forums , blogs etc...and i know it is a difficult task to control spamming..but if u say my link is a spam..why are the other similar links still there...even after me repeatedly pointing out the same thing...U give me a clear reason on why you think my link is promotional where as the others are not..im not adding the link now..but if u say that those links remain there..i would have to find a way to get the links i suggested to get there...by contacting any further administrators or moderators of wikipedia...so u give me a clear reason or you remove the other promotional links...now its not the matter of putting the links on the article it is if u say i need to follow rules and u give me warnings...how do the other people who have added the links do not get warnings or get their links removed...i may add more relevant or important information on any topics on wikipedia..and would only wait and see it be deleted...without getting proper reasoning from editors like you and the only response i get is your link is promotional??? Hefind (talk) 04:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Non-durable POA (USA)

In many (all?) jurisdictions in the United States, there is a difference between Durable POA and Non-durable POA, but I don't find the term mentioned in this article. Legal mavens should add information about that category and explain the differences. Thank you, Wordreader (talk)

See wiki.powersofattorney.com its got all the answers. BeachSyder (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 13 - bad link

Reference 13: "See Link To Power of Attorney Statutes for all 50 States." reportedly links to: http://www.medlawplus.com/library/legal/durablepowerofattorney.htm but there is no such page, so it defaults to http://www.medlawplus.com/ which is a divorce site. This is my first wiki posting ever, so I'm not sure how to fix this, but hope someone else will fix it. Because there are different categories or options in a Power of Attorney, such as whether durable, temporary, springing, etc., there are no all-purpose templates online for each US state. The following site allows you to pull up a sample for your state, but the sample is an image that can't be cut and pasted. https://www.lawdepot.com/contracts/power-of-attorney-forms/ Jaffeb (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)jaffeb[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Power of attorney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111129080542/http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/dpoaa/2008_final.htm to http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/dpoaa/2008_final.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph Springing

appears twice - as 3.3 and 3.6, identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C15D:EB00:1CC6:B3D5:54FE:5C33 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Not under seal"?

Three opening paragraph asserts that poa need not be made under seal. Oin the UK it must be made by deed, and therefore seems to me to be "under seal" even though seals are not in fact used any longer.

Or would it be better to say that a poa must be made by deed, since that would include the old system of sealing and the new system of signing as a deed? Eteb3 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m power of attorney for my mother since my father died but my mother is in care now and they say I will have to sell the flat they bought from the council years ago

I am now power of attorney over my mum and dads estate since my dad died in November and my mum has now gone into care and they think I will need to sell the house to pay for my mothers care home 92.14.220.240 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Power of attorney

Voice 92.14.220.240 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]