GGNSC Stanford, LLC v. Rowe
388 S.W.3d 117
Ky. Ct. App.2012Background
- Deborah Rowe was mentally incompetent from birth; her parents never obtained a guardianship.
- On October 24, 2001, Clara and William Rowe executed a Power of Attorney appointing Nancy Meadows as Deborah’s attorney-in-fact.
- The PoA authorized Nancy to transact various business and did not revoke during Deborah’s incapacity.
- Nancy oversaw Deborah’s affairs and in 2007 placed Deborah in Golden LivingCenter, signing admission papers and an arbitration agreement as “PoA.”
- Deborah died in 2009; the estate’s co-administrators sued the nursing home for wrongful death; defendants moved to dismiss arguing the arbitration agreement was valid.
- The circuit court ruled the arbitration agreement was invalid due to lack of authority; on appeal, the issue is whether Nancy had actual or apparent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Nancy have actual authority to sign for Deborah? | Rowe argues Nancy had no authority due to lack of guardianship. | Golden contends the PoA and healthcare surrogacy statutes grant authority to act for Deborah. | No actual authority found. |
| Did Deborah’s parents or the PoA create apparent authority for Nancy? | Estate contends no apparent authority was created to bind Deborah. | Golden asserts Nancy was held out as Deborah’s agent by the parents. | No apparent authority established. |
| Should the estate be estopped from denying the arbitration agreement? | Estate should be able to contest validity of arbitration. | Golden argues estoppel due to representations by Nancy’s purported authority. | Estoppel not preserved; even if considered, not applicable. |
| What governs the court’s review of the arbitration issue? | Not explicitly framed as an error; standard of review is de novo for legal questions. | Arbitration validity is governed by ordinary contract principles; de novo review. | De novo review applied; arbitration invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mt. Holly Nursing Center v. Crowdus, 281 S.W.3d 809 (Ky.App.2008) (no apparent agency where patient did nothing to indicate agent;)
- Mill Street Church of Christ v. Hogan, 785 S.W.2d 263 (Ky.App.1990) (implied authority is actual authority circumspectly proven)
- Estell v. Barrickman, 571 S.W.2d 650 (Ky.App.1978) (apparent authority defined as authority the principal holds the agent out to possess)
- Scott v. Montgomery Traders Bank and Trust Company, 956 S.W.2d 902 (Ky.1997) (parents lack authority to fund settlements without guardian)
- Jones v. Cowan, 729 S.W.2d 188 (Ky.App.1987) (child’s guardian may approve settlements; parents acting as next friend cannot)
- DeGrella v. Elston, 858 S.W.2d 698 (Ky.1993) (healthcare decisions and surrogacy statutes discussed)
- Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2010) (guardian oversight relevant to authority limits)
- Frank v. Estate of Enderle, 253 S.W.3d 570 (Ky.App.2008) (estoppel considerations in estate matters)