Bartholomew v. Blevins
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9882
6th Cir.2012Background
- Latonya Bartholomew, a USAF member, executed a military power of attorney designating Lyndon Bartholomew as attorney-in-fact during Latonya's deployment.
- Lyndon presented a photocopy of the POA to Fayette County Clerk to record a deed and mortgage; the clerk refused, deeming the copy inauthentic.
- The Bartholomews sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting the county violated 10 U.S.C. § 1044b by not recognizing a photocopy.
- The district court held § 1044b does not require the county to accept a copy and dismissed the complaint.
- Latonya later provided the original POA and the deeds were recorded in 2011; the appeal proceeded nonetheless.
- The court ultimately affirmed dismissal, holding the photocopy did not qualify for § 1044b protections because it was not notarized as required by the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1044b require states to recognize photocopies of military powers of attorney? | Bartholomews contend photocopies fall within § 1044b protections. | Blevins argues § 1044b protects only notarized originals, not photocopies. | photocopies do not qualify; § 1044b protections apply only to notarized originals or equivalents. |
| Did the clerk's requirement of an original instrument amount to an impermissible additional requirement under § 1044b? | Bartholomews argue the clerk imposed an impermissible requirement. | Clerk relied on a general state policy requiring originals, not adding new formality. | No violation; clerk's demand for an original complied with the statute's notarization requirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am., 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing dismissal under Iqbal/ Twombly; plausible claim evaluation)
- United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1989) (interpretation of statutory language; preemption analysis)
- Brilliance Audio, Inc. v. Haights Cross Commc'ns, Inc., 474 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 2007) (remedial statute should be broadly construed to effectuate purposes)
- In re Carter, 553 F.3d 979 (6th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of statutory provision in context of broader scheme)
- Shearson v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 638 F.3d 498 (6th Cir. 2011) (statutory interpretation starting with language/structure; preemption)