| JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : HUMAN RIGHTS ACT : GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1990 (WA) CITATION : DI and DN [2013] WASAT 4 MEMBER : MR J MANSVELD (MEMBER) HEARD : 1 AUGUST 2012, 30 AUGUST 2012, 4 DECEMBER 2012, 14 DECEMBER 2012 DELIVERED : 7 JANUARY 2013 FILE NO/S : GAA 990 of 2012 BETWEEN : DI Applicant
AND
DN
Represented person
Catchwords: Guardianship and administration Enduring power of attorney Conflict of interest Sale of unit in retirement village Accommodation bond Views and wishes of represented person Best interests Legislation: Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA), s 3, s 4, s 64(1)(a), s 68, s 84, s 97(1)(b)(i), s 97(1)(b)(iii), s 109, s 109(1)(a), s 109(1)(b)
(Page 2)
Result: An administrator is appointed
Summary of Tribunal's decision: Applications were made for an 87yearold woman who had recently moved from a retirement village to a nursing home.
The applications were for the appointment of a guardian, the revocation of an enduring power of guardianship, two applications concerning an enduring power of attorney and an application for the appointment of an administrator.
The son of the woman had been appointed her attorney under an enduring power of attorney and her guardian under an enduring power of guardianship.
The applications had been made by a daughter of the woman who was supported by other family members.
The daughter and a granddaughter were appointed the woman's guardians to consent to her medical treatment. The enduring power of guardianship was revoked. The guardianship appointment was not opposed by the son.
The daughter submitted that the enduring power of attorney had not operated in the woman's best interests because the son had not satisfactorily progressed the sale of the woman's unit in the retirement village, thereby putting the woman under financial pressure. The daughter also expressed concern at the loans and gifts made to the son from the woman's estate.
The Tribunal found that the son had maintained adequate records of the transactions undertaken as the woman's attorney.
However the Tribunal found that the relationship between the son and the Executive Manager of the retirement village was such that it was proving to be counterproductive to effective sale of the woman's retirement unit and that this was impacting on her estate.
The Tribunal decided to revoke the enduring power of attorney and appoint the daughter as the administrator of the woman's estate.
Category: B
Representation: Counsel:
Applicant : N/A
Represented person : N/A
(Page 3)
Solicitors:
Applicant : N/A
Represented person : N/A
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 4)
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:
Introduction 1 Five applications under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) (GA Act) were made for DN (Mrs N) by her daughter DI (daughter). 2 The applications were for the appointment of a guardian, the revocation of an enduring power of guardianship, two applications concerning an enduring power of attorney and an application for the appointment of an administrator. 3 The principal parties to the applications were the applicant, Mrs N, AN, Mrs N's son (son), JM, Mrs N's granddaughter (granddaughter), PI and MI, Mrs N's sonsinlaw and the Public Advocate. 4 At a hearing of the Tribunal on 1 August 2012, the daughter and granddaughter were appointed the joint limited guardians for Mrs N to make her ongoing treatment decisions. The enduring power of guardianship in favour of the son was revoked. The son did not oppose the orders. Oral reasons for those decisions were given at the time. 5 Three applications remained on foot. They were: 6 Mrs N had executed an enduring power of attorney on or about 30 July 1992 in favour of the son. According to the son the document was misplaced and a fresh instrument was executed by Mrs N on 16 June 2009 (EPA). In that document she declared that the power could be exercised immediately. There is no dispute that the EPA was made by Mrs N and that it has been used by the son. 7 On 25 September 2012, I dismissed the EPA applications. Oral reasons were given on that day. 8 On the same day the remaining application, the application for an administration order, was adjourned with a number of directions given to the son as attorney under the EPA. (Page 5)
9 On 14 December 2012, I revoked the EPA and appointed the daughter as the plenary administrator of the estate of Mrs N. 10 What follows are the reasons for the appointment of an administrator. The reasons incorporate a good deal of the oral reasons given on 25 September 2012 concerning the EPA applications. This has been necessary to provide the context for the making of the administration order.
The Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA) 11 In proceedings commenced under the GA Act, the Tribunal must observe the principles set out in s 4 of the GA Act. 12 The primary concern of the Tribunal is Mrs N's best interests. In deciding whether to make an administration order the Tribunal must consider whether there are any less restrictive alternatives to the making of an order. Any order appointing a limited administrator should be in terms that impose the least restrictions on Mrs N. In considering the applications the Tribunal must, as far as possible, ascertain Mrs N's views and wishes (s 4(1), s 4(2)(a), (c), (e) and (f) of the GA Act). 13 In deciding who may be appointed an administrator, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed appointee will act in Mrs N's best interests and is otherwise suitable to act as administrator of her estate. The Tribunal shall take into account the compatibility of the proposed appointee with Mrs N and with her guardian, Mrs N's wishes, and whether the proposed appointee will be able to perform the functions proposed to be vested in him or her (s 68(1) and (3) of the GA Act). 14 The daughter and granddaughter of Mrs N are not disqualified from being appointed the administrator for Mrs N's estate because of their appointment as her guardian (s 68(4) of the GA Act). 15 Except where she is appointed to act jointly with another person or persons, the Tribunal shall not appoint the Public Advocate as administrator unless there is no other individual or corporate trustee who is suitable and willing to act (s 68(5) of the GA Act).
The role of the Public Advocate 16 The applications were referred to the Public Advocate for investigation pursuant to s 97(1)(b)(iii) of the GA Act. The role of the Public Advocate in these proceedings is to advance the best interests of Mrs N (s 97(1)(b)(i)). DD, an investigator from the Office of the (Page 6)
Public Advocate (Public Advocate's representative), provided a written report and attended the hearings.
The question of Mrs N's capacity 17 Under s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act, before the Tribunal can consider whether there is a need for an administrator of Mrs N's estate, it must first be satisfied that she is unable by reason of a mental disability to make reasonable judgments in respect of matters relating to all or any part of her estate. Mental disability is defined in s 3 of the GA Act to include an intellectual disability, a psychiatric condition, an acquired brain injury and dementia. 18 Every person is entitled to a presumption of capacity (s 4(2)(b) of the GA Act). 19 There are a number of reports before the Tribunal that go to the question of Mrs N's current capacity. They are, in chronological order:
Date | Report | 24/08/11 | ACAT assessment | 29/12/11 | Dr OL, Consultant Psychiatrist | 14/03/12 | DSL, Nurse Manager at the nursing home in which Mrs N resides | 24/03/12 | Dr PB, General Practitioner | 12/04/12 | Dr MW, Psychiatrist | 18/05/12 | Dr DN, General Practitioner | 20 Dr MW has been Mrs N's treating psychiatrist for six years. His assessment is that she suffers from vascular dementia and bipolar disorder. Dr MW states that Mrs N has deteriorated significantly since her last hospital admission and has difficulty grasping concepts and the consequences of decisions. 21 The assessment of Dr MW is consistent with the opinions expressed in the other reports. Dr PB states that Mrs N is confused most of the time. Dr OL states that Mrs N is both subjectively and objectively anxious, has poverty of thought and limited insight. She states that Mrs N suffered a recent depressive relapse in the context of family conflict and that the conflict is a chronic stressor on her mental state. Dr DN who has not seen (Page 7)
Mrs N since August 2011, opines that Mrs N has been delusional since 2008 and unable to make rational decisions since that time. 22 The son as Mrs N's attorney states (in reference to the opinion of Dr DN) that his experience of his mother in 2008 was one of difficulty with word selection and some memory loss. 23 It is common ground that Mrs N is not able to make decisions about the management of her financial affairs. I accept that to be the case, and find that she satisfies the requirements of s 64(1)(a) of the GA Act and that the presumption of capacity is displaced. Mrs N has a progressive dementia and a psychiatric condition. She is in a state of almost constant confusion. She is unable to make reasonable judgments about any part of her estate.
The applications 24 The applications were heard on 1 August 2012, 30 August 2012, 4 December 2012 and 14 December 2012. 25 On 1 August 2012, I made an order requiring the son, as attorney, to submit the following: A statement setting out, in aggregate terms, how the $280,000 Mrs N received for the sale of Mrs N's shares in a nursing home in 2001 was disbursed and showing how that disbursement and further disbursements since 2001 had culminated in her current estate comprising, other than the lease of a unit in a retirement village, various bank accounts, term deposits, loans to the attorney and an income managed investment totalling, as reported by the son at the hearing, at about $210,000. The son was further required to submit a statement setting out all the loans and gifts obtained by him since 2001, including the current balance of any outstanding loans and the arrangement for their repayment. 26 The son filed a statement in answer to the above with the Tribunal on 23 August 2012. 27 The EPA applications were related to the application for an administration order, in the sense that the daughter and others were alleging that the son, as attorney, was not acting in Mrs N's best interests, and that he should be removed from his position as attorney. (Page 8)
28 The initial position of the daughter and granddaughter was that the EPA should be revoked and that the Public Trustee be appointed the administrator of Mrs N's estate. Their final submission, put at the hearing on 14 December 2012, was that the daughter be appointed as Mrs N's administrator. 29 The son submits that there is no need for change and that he should remain as attorney for Mrs N under the existing EPA. 30 The daughter and granddaughter have expressed a number of concerns about the conduct of the son in his capacity as attorney for Mrs N. They can be broken into four areas: 1) The issue of communication. 2) The benefits that allegedly accrued to the son from Mrs N's estate by way of gifts and loans. 3) Whether the son has managed Mrs N's estate in her best interests since the sale of her shares in the nursing home in 2001. 4) The lack of progress of the sale of Mrs N's unit in the retirement village (retirement unit). 31 I will address each in turn.
Communication 32 The applicant says that the son does not communicate with other family members about Mrs N's financial affairs, has not been transparent about her financial needs and also about the benefits he has obtained from her estate. This has inhibited family members from assisting in Mrs N's care; for example, in the arrangements about getting her a private room, the ongoing affordability of the room which includes extra services (and which the son is currently questioning) and the outstanding accommodation bond. 33 The alleged lack of transparency has fostered a view in the family that the son has something to hide. 34 It is submitted that the son is secretive and does not consult with other family members who play an intimate role in Mrs N's life. (Page 9)
35 The communication between the son and other family members is, and has been, mostly by way of written correspondence. 36 It is submitted that the son is fixed in his views and has unnecessary difficulties with communication; for example, in communicating with the Executive Manager of the retirement village. 37 It is said that Mrs N has, in the past, found it impossible to question her son because she has been afraid to put him offside. Mrs N is said to be deeply affected by the family dispute. 38 The son disputes the contention that he does not respond to the enquiries put to him by family members. He points to the correspondence submitted by the daughter with her applications which he says demonstrates his willingness to respond (his letters of 23 December 2011; 16 January 2012 and 3 February 2012). The daughter says the responses of the son are inaccurate and misleading. 39 The son says he has corresponded with family members over the years including advising them of the original loan and gifts to him from Mrs N's estate. 40 Some of the correspondence submitted from 2001 and 2002 appears to indicate that the concerns raised in the applications were present as far back as at that time. In particular, a letter to the son by a family member dated 16 September 2002, asks questions about loans made to him from Mrs N's estate and the perceived need to be 'open and honest' in responding to the queries raised by the author.
Loans and gifts to the son since 2001 41 As mentioned earlier in these reasons, the son provided a statement of Mrs N's financial affairs in response to the Tribunal's orders of 1 August 2012. 42 The son states that when Mrs N sold her shares in the nursing home in 2001 he borrowed $69,683 from her, which was reduced by $23,571.50, an amount then owed by Mrs N to the son. The balance of $46,291.50 became the loan amount on which interest was payable monthly at 5% per annum and which was repayable on demand on one month's notice. The terms of the loan were reduced to an Acknowledgment of Debt dated and signed by both Mrs N and the son on 28 November 2001. The document is before the Tribunal. The son says (Page 10)
that he has made interest and capital payments on the loan such that the balance of the loan is currently $36,284.95. 43 The son states that from 12 February 2004 to 4 March 2011 a number of relatively small undocumented loans were made to him from Mrs N's estate (the largest being $6,000 on 4 September 2005), all of which have been repaid. The Public Advocate's representative questions the appropriateness of the loans, especially the loans made after 2008 (about $17,000) because of Dr DN's assessment that Mrs N was not capable since about 2008. 44 The daughter submits that the son's selfinterest (as against the interests of Mrs N) was the basis of the loans made to him. The Public Advocate submits that the son has a conflict of interest as to the possible need to call up the loan secured by the Acknowledgment of Debt. 45 The son states that he has received three gifts totalling $30,000 from Mrs N since 2001: $10,000 on 16 November 2001; $10,000 on 28 November 2001; and $10,000 on 27 November 2002. The son says these gifts were made in accordance with the gifting rules determined by Centrelink. 46 The son states that the gifts have been paid into a term deposit in his name, the funds have not been accessed by him and the interest has been reinvested. The deposit has grown to a current amount of $50,041.96. The son says that he pays income tax on the interest earned. He states, 'These will be available for my mother's use in due course' (page 5 of the son's statement of 23 August 2012). He references a letter he wrote to a family member on 7 January 2002 to confirm his intentions. It states: In the event of her death, the sum of TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($20,000.00), currently the subject of Police and Nurses Credit Society Term Deposit Accounts … in the name of [the son] are to be paid to the estate of [Mrs N]. In the event of my death, the said sums are to be held, by my Executor, at the direction of [Mrs N]. 47 The letter was written prior to the third gift of $10,000 on 27 November 2002 but the son says the letter applies to all the gifts made.
Management of Mrs N's estate 48 The son says that Mrs N received advice from a financial planner when she received the proceeds from the sale of the nursing home shares. (Page 11)
Part of the strategy of the financial advisor was implemented, except that instead of investing in managed investments as suggested, Mrs N made gifts and loans and opened a term deposit. 49 In the statement submitted to the Tribunal the son states that Mrs N received just over $280,000 in 2001 for the sale of her shares in the nursing home . This was disbursed as follows • $21,630 repayment of loan to the estate of a family member (some family members were and remain aggrieved about this; there was an expectation that the loan would be forgiven but the son, as executor and beneficiary, decided against this); • $69,683 to the son as a loan and repayment of a existing loan; and • $190,000 to a cash management account. 50 The son says that the cash management account operated by way of a cheque account and that all the cheques were drawn by Mrs N. He details expenditure of about $186,000 over the period 12 October 2001 to 28 July 2004. That expenditure includes the gifts made to him ($30,000); gifts and loans made to other family members ($42,000); investment in an AMP Guaranteed Income Plan ($38,000); and transfers to term deposits ($42,000), totalling $152,000. 51 From the financial information provided by the son, the estate of Mrs N can be approximately determined as follows (as at 23 August 2012):
| Assets | | Bank funds $86,000 | | Loan to son (available on one months' notice) $36,000 | | Readily available cash funds$122,000 | | The term deposit housing the gifts to the son which he says can be made available to Mrs N$50,000 | | AMP Income Plan$38,000 | | Interest in retirement unitNK | (Page 12)
| Liabilities | | Accommodation Bond payable$375,000 | | Monthly interest on Bond $2,700 | | Monthly maintenance fee on unit$400 | | Extra services bed at the nursing homeX |
The sale of the retirement unit 52 The son states that in October 2011, whilst Mrs N was in hospital, the Executive Manager of the retirement village (Executive Manager) advised that she could not return to her retirement unit because her care needs were too high. The Executive Manager advised by letter dated 23 January 2012 that the lease on her retirement unit had been terminated. 53 The son says that the sale of the retirement unit was originally delayed when, on the advice of Mrs N's psychiatrist, he had allowed Mrs N to participate in sorting the contents of the unit. 54 This sale of the retirement unit appears to be the cause of a rupturing of the festering wounds in the family. It is particularly contentious because as far as the daughter is concerned it is representative of the son's poor management of Mrs N's estate. 55 Quite simply put, there is a fundamental disagreement within the family as to how the retirement unit should be marketed and sold. 56 The daughter agrees with the Executive Manager that it is best that the retirement unit have a major refurbishment and be sold within the retirement village structure. 57 The initial position of the son was that he wanted to involve a real estate agent external to the retirement village. He did not agree that a refurbishment was needed and challenged the right of the owners to charge 5% of the resale price to contribute to the cost of a refurbishment because such a charge was not part of Mrs N's lease. The son was of the view that a refurbishment was not necessary as the value of the unit is in the expansive view it commands. The new residents could themselves decide the extent of any refurbishment. (Page 13)
58 Correspondence submitted to the Tribunal details an increasingly acrimonious exchange between the son and the Executive Manager. For example, a letter from the Executive Manager to the son dated 12 July 2012 states in part: 59 The Executive Manager had previously strongly recommended a major refurbishment be carried out on Mrs N's retirement unit (letter to the son, 23 May 2012). The Executive Manager reminded the son that the retirement village owners would need to approve the appointment of any external real estate agent and he questioned whether such an agent would understand what is required in a major refurbishment (letter to the son, 28 September 2012). 60 In his written report dated 30 July 2012, the Public Advocate's representative stated that he had made contact with the Executive Manager who had advised that the then current value of the retirement unit was between $400,000 and $500,000 but with a major refurbishment costing $160,000 the sale value could increase to $900,000. 61 In his submissions for hearings held on 4 and 14 December 2012, the son provided further correspondence with the Executive Manager including that for the period September to December 2012. (Page 14)
62 The son continued to question the right of the retirement village to levy the 5% charge of the sale price as a contribution to any refurbishment cost. 63 In letters to the Executive Manager dated 6 November 2012 and 30 November 2012, the son proposed that the retirement village fund the cost of a major refurbishment without any contribution by Mrs N. According to the son, the benefit to the retirement village (and to Mrs N) would be the expected higher capital gains on the increased sale price divided 60% to the retirement village and 40% to Mrs N as per the lease agreement. 64 The Executive Manager rejected that proposal. In a letter dated 7 December 2012 he stated that on a rereading of the lease he was convinced that Mrs N was liable for the 5% contribution to the refurbishment cost. He reiterated his view that a major refurbishment was the most financially appropriate option and proposed, as an agreement independent of the lease, that the retirement village fund a major refurbishment but that Mrs N pay the 5% contribution on a minor refurbishment calculation plus 40% of the cost of the major refurbishment in excess of the 5% contribution, the 40 % reflecting her entitlement to the capital gains on sale of the retirement unit. 65 The son rejected that proposal, as well as a further proposal of the Executive Manager, in a letter dated 11 December 2012 that the retirement village '… buy the villa back at ''as is'' valuation price determined by an Independent Valuer and apply the lease formulae to determine a net payout to [Mrs N]'. 66 At the time of hearing on 14 December 2012 it appears that the son had discontinued with the external real estate agent (who had declined to act), and that he was prepared to proceed with a minor refurbishment (expected cost $24,250). This was contrary to the recommendation of the Executive Manager and it was not clear whether agreement had been reached with the son as to how the retirement unit was to be sold. 67 The son states that he has not met with the Executive Manager at any time to discuss the sale. The communication has been by correspondence. 68 The son wrote to the nursing home on 7 November 2012 requesting notification of the availability of any high care (not extra services) rooms or beds '… to mitigate the costs, as the Bond interest for the extra services room is depleting her resources'. (Page 15)
69 This request is opposed by the applicant and other family members. They submit that the extra services room was what Mrs N preferred and was able to secure. They further submit that the son's tardiness in selling the retirement unit is the reason for the depletion of Mrs N's funds. 70 The daughter says that all that the son is effectively doing is holding up the sale of the unit whilst Mrs N has to bear the costs of the ongoing interest on the accommodation bond and the maintenance fee to the retirement village. 71 PI, a soninlaw (the daughter's spouse) says that the son will not, in his view, get anywhere near the price for the unit he is seeking unless a major refurbishment takes place. The standard system of selling retirement units has been established to ensure the retirement village remains involved. This is done by requiring that the retirement village approve any external agent and any proposed new resident. The retirement village takes a portion of the external agent's commission and sale price. 72 The view of the Executive Manager about the preference for a major refurbishment is confirmed by the Public Advocate's representative. 73 At the hearing on 14 December 2012, the daughter proposed herself as the administrator of Mrs N's estate. She is supported in her submission by the granddaughter, the Public Advocate, PI and RM, another soninlaw. 74 RM submits that the retirement unit should be sold and sold quickly. He says that there should not be arguments about money for an 87yearold woman in Mrs N's situation. 75 In supporting the appointment of the applicant, the Public Advocate's representative states that there appears to be a breakdown in communication between the son and the Executive Manager that has caused delays in the sale of the retirement unit. The Public Advocate's representative submits that the son appears unable to resolve the refurbishment issue with the Executive Manager which is not in Mrs N's best interests.
The views and wishes of Mrs N 76 Mrs N was interviewed on her own at the nursing home by the Public Advocate's representative. He reports as follows: (Page 16)
• Mrs N demonstrated confusion and an inability to consistently respond to questions in a meaningful way. • She trusts all her children and her grandchild (JM). • She says that her children are good people who would band together in an emergency. • She trusts her son to repay any loans he has with her. • She is happy for her son to organise her affairs.
The decision of the Tribunal on the application for an administration order 77 As already mentioned in these reasons, the EPA applications were dismissed on 25 September 2012, and reasons were given on that day. 78 The question currently before me is whether the EPA should continue or whether an administration order should take its place in the management of Mrs N's estate. 79 I made orders on 25 September 2012 directing the son, as attorney, to demand repayment of the loan made to him in his personal capacity as a means of reducing the accommodation bond debt. I found that there was a conflict of interest in the son's position as Mrs N's attorney and his position as her debtor. 80 Although the son complied with the direction, I note with some concern that the son had not earlier dealt with the conflict of interest. It was clearly in Mrs N's best interests that her accommodation bond and attendant interest charge be reduced. The interest on the accommodation bond exceeded that which she was receiving from the loan. 81 At the time I dismissed the EPA applications on 25 September 2012, the submission of the applicant and others was that the Public Trustee be appointed the administrator of Mrs N's estate. At the time I was not overly concerned about the difficult communications between the son and other family members. I said that I appreciated that good communications would be of benefit to Mrs N but in my experience it is not uncommon in families for communication to be problematic. I found that that of itself was not sufficient to warrant the appointment of an administrator external to the family. 82 The issue of communication has, however, assumed some prominence because of the son's proposal that consideration be given for (Page 17)
Mrs N to be moved from the extra services bed at the nursing home as a consequence of her current cashflow difficulties. He is seeking this consideration as Mrs N's financial manager and has communicated by letter with the nursing home. It appears, however, that he has not discussed this with other family members, in particular with Mrs N's medical guardians, the daughter and granddaughter. 83 I accept the evidence given earlier in these proceedings that it was the preference of Mrs N to be given her own room with the extra services, and the guardians wish that to continue, it being favourable to her health and wellbeing. 84 The apparent inability of the son to effectively discuss this important matter with other family members is not in my view in Mrs N's best interests. 85 The sale of the retirement unit is the most significant decision that needs to be made on Mrs N's estate. I find that the son has demonstrated, despite the time given to progress the sale (the hearings on 25 September 2012, 4 December 2012 and 14 December 2012), that he is unable to satisfactorily resolve this matter on behalf of Mrs N with the Executive Officer of the retirement village. 86 The son initially took a course of action (the decision to seek to employ an agent external to the retirement village) which it appears is not the common approach to the sale of a unit in a retirement village. The applicant disagreed with this approach and, in that, she was supported by other family members and the Executive Manager, who it must be said has the interests of the retirement village to protect. 87 Early in these proceedings the son was confident that if he got the opportunity to employ an external agent he would be able to dispose of the retirement unit in two to three months. This did not prove to be the case. Moreover, the dispute about the extent of the refurbishment needed and whether Mrs N is required to make a contribution to the cost of the refurbishment has escalated and become the subject of ongoing and somewhat acrimonious correspondence between the son and the Executive Manager. 88 I have come to the conclusion that the relationship between the son and the Executive Manager is such that it is proving to be counterproductive to effective sale of Mrs N's retirement unit. (Page 18)
89 I am not confident that the breakdown in the relationship can be set right. The son has not yet met face to face with the Executive Manager to discuss their differences despite being invited to do so (see, for example, the Executive Manager's letter to the son of 12 July 2012). 90 As the retirement unit remains unsold, Mrs N's estate continues to bear the significant cost of the interest charge on the accommodation bond debt with the nursing home. 91 What is required is for someone to step in and quickly progress the refurbishment and sale of the retirement unit to make funds available for payment of the accommodation bond and to enable Mrs N to continue to have the benefit of the extra services bed at the nursing home. 92 Once the unit is sold, Mrs N's estate should stabilise and become uncomplicated in its management. 93 I am not satisfied the son can any longer manage this process in Mrs N's best interests. 94 I have therefore decided that I should appoint the daughter as Mrs N's administrator and that the EPA should no longer be permitted to operate. I am satisfied that the daughter meets the requirements set out in s 68(1) and (3) of the GA Act. 95 In making this decision, I have been mindful of the wishes of Mrs N expressed through the EPA, and to the representative of the Public Advocate. However, my decision must be what I consider to be in Mrs N's best interests. 96 The term of the order should be set for the maximum period available under the GA Act, namely five years (s 84 of the GA Act).
Orders 97 On an application for the appointment of an administrator for the represented person, [Mrs N], heard before Member J Mansveld on 14 December 2012, it is ordered that: 1. [The daughter] is appointed plenary administrator of the estate of the represented person with all the powers and duties conferred by the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 (WA). 2. The enduring power of attorney dated 16 June 2009 by which [Mrs N] appointed [the son] to be her attorney, is revoked. 3. This order is to be reviewed by 14 December 2017. (Page 19)
|