Gade Nursing Home, Inc. V. Jennifer Buckingham

Headnotes

H1: Civil Procedure > Parties > Joinder of Parties > General Overview

Civil Procedure > Joinder of Parties > Compulsory Joinder > Necessary Parties

Under Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a), a joinder of persons is allowed as needed for just adjudication. If a person is subject to service of process and claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may as a practical matter, impeded his ability to protect that interest, the person is necessary for just adjudication and should be joined.

H2: Estate, Gift & Trust Law > Estate Planning > Power of Attorney > General Overview

The Agent under a Power of Attorney has a fiduciary relationship with the principal. A fiduciary relationship is one in which special confidence and trust are reposed in the integrity and fidelity of another by virtue of this special trust. The person who holds the Power of Attorney bears the burden of proof on the issue of the fairness of the transaction. Additionally, any transfer of property from a principal to his attorney in fact must be viewed with some suspicion. 

Summary of Case

Procedural Posture: The plaintiff comes before the court to collect a monetary judgment previously adjudicated in this matter. Defendant claims there was no wrongdoing on Defendant’s part and attempts to join parties in this matter. 

Overview: Defendant was appointed the agent for Defendant’s grandfather by a General Power of Attorney. Defendant was made an agent due to Defendant’s grandfather’s declining health. As such, Defendant’s grandfather entered Plaintiff’s nursing home facility.

Medicaid became necessary in this case as Defendant’s grandfather had exhausted his funds. However, Defendant’s grandfather was receiving monthly payments from the Veteran’s Administration, Social security, and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. After Defendant’s grandfather passed, there was still a balance owed to Plaintiff. In a prior proceeding, it was determined that Defendant owed $15,250.00 to Plaintiff, arising out of Defendant’s duties to Defendant’s grandfather.

In addition to Plaintiff wanting to collect on their prior judgment, Plaintiff would also like to have Defendant found negligent in completing her POA duties. Defendant claims that Defendant’s grandfather’s monthly income was being misappropriated by another family member, and that Plaintiff should seek judgment against the other family member.

Outcome:  The Court grants judgment against the Defendant in the amount of $28,899.88, plus judgment interest at 4% per annum, and plus court costs, due to the Plaintiff.