Texas Tech University School of Law
Texas Tech School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-03
THE UNIFORM POWER OF ATTORNEY ACT: NEW SOLUTIONS TO OLD
PROBLEMS
Gerry W. Beyer, Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1396502
studies
estate planning
April 2009
The Uniform Power of Attorney Act:
New solutions to old problems
By Gerry W. Beyer*
A durable power of attorney can fail for any number of reasons. This Study examines some of the
provisions in the 2006 Uniform Power of Attorney Act and how they attempt to meet some of the
challenges that durable powers face, with a focus on:
n formalities in drafting
n standards of conduct for an agent
Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act, the
1988 Uniform Statutory Form Power of Attorney Act, and, most recently, the 2006 Uniform
Power of Attorney Act (UPOAA).
Although only two states, Idaho and New
Mexico, have adopted the UPOAA, it already
has been introduced in the legislatures of at
least three other states (Indiana, Maryland and
Virginia) this year. It is anticipated that enactment of the UPOAA or “cherry-picking” of
certain of its provisions will grow rapidly in
®
Your clients are statistically more likely to
become disabled in the next year than to die
if they are now under age 60.1 Thus, it is
extremely important to plan for the possibility
of their disability and to make arrangements for
the management of their property2 during times
when they may lack the ability to make those
decisions for themselves. Delegating management powers in a general power of attorney is
not usually a viable option.
Under traditional agency law, an agent’s
authority terminated when the principal became
incompetent, on the theory that the principal
would no longer be able to monitor the agent’s
conduct. This rule prevented powers of attorney from being used as a disability planning
technique. In 1954 Virginia become the first
state to authorize by statute a durable power
of attorney, which provided that the agent’s
authority to act continues even after the principal becomes incompetent. All states now sanction durable powers of attorney.
To address concerns with durable powers
that have arisen over the years, the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws has approved a progression of
recommended statutes, including the 1979
n an agent’s powers and authority
n overcoming the dishonoring of the document
Estate Planning Studies and Briefs® is
published by trust departments around the
country and distributed free of charge to
estate planning professionals. For details,
contact The Merrill Anderson Company,
www.merrillanderson.com.
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1396502
Agent’s acceptance
the near future. 3
CREATION FORMALITIES
Statutory form
Although its use is not required, UPOAA §301 contains a concise statutory form, which the principal, in
most cases, will elect to use. The form is more extensive than the forms currently in use in many states.
The form begins with instructions on how a power
of attorney operates. The form then continues in
“fill-in-the-blank” fashion, providing the principal
with spaces to indicate his or her desires. But unlike
some state forms, the UPOAA form’s list of powers to be granted must be initialed (either each one
individually or next to one that states “all preceding
subjects”), rather than presumptively granting all
powers with only those powers that the principal
strikes out as not being granted. The form also supplies a list of powers, generally relating to gifts and
other estate planning matters, that the principal must
specifically grant if he or she wishes the agent to
have those powers.
The form includes spaces for two alternatives as
well as for the principal to indicate special instructions. For example, the principal may not want certain specific items of property (e.g., heirlooms or the
family farm) to be gifted or sold because those items
are to pass upon death under the principal’s will.
The principal may use this form to nominate a
guardian or conservator of his or her estate, should
the need later arise. It is significant that the form
does not include a provision for the principal to
exclude individuals from being appointed as guardian or conservator. This is considered a major shortcoming of the UPOAA—it may be more important
to a principal to keep the “evil” child from being
appointed as a guardian than it is to specify exactly
which of the “good” children has priority. See
UPOAA §108(a).
The form concludes with an information section
for the agent. This material, for example, explains:
the agent’s duties; how to sign as an agent in a representative capacity; the time at which the agent’s
authority terminates; and the liability of the agent.
At the bottom of the form is a warning that the agent
should seek legal advice if the agent is unclear about
the document or the agent’s duties.
© 2009 M.A. Co. All rights reserved.
Under UPOAA §113, an agent demonstrates acceptance of his or her appointment by “exercising
authority or performing duties as an agent or by any
other assertion or conduct indicating acceptance.”
PRESUMPTION OF DURABILITY
In a significant change from prior Uniform statutes
and the laws of virtually all states, a power of attorney is now presumed to be durable, unless it contains
express language negating the durability feature.
UPOAA §104. As explained in the Comment, this
change is “based on the assumption that most principals prefer durability as a hedge against the need
for guardianship.”
SPRINGING POWERS OF ATTORNEY
UPOAA §109 provides that, unless otherwise stated,
a power of attorney is effective immediately. This
assumption has two ramifications, one good, one
bad. The good: The principal does not need to be
concerned with how his or her disability is going
to be determined because disability is not a condition for the agent to have authority to act. The bad:
The agent may immediately manage the principal’s
property, which may provide an open avenue for
improper conduct, both innocent and intentional.
Of course, if the principal fears that an agent will
act improperly now, the principal should anticipate
that the principal would act improperly later and
select a more trustworthy agent. Fear is, however,
not the reason most principals like springing powers.
Instead, as the Comment states, the reason is “most
likely to maintain privacy in the hope that they will
never need a surrogate decision maker.”
The principal may expressly make the agent’s
power begin on a specified date or depend on occurrence of a stated contingency, such as the principal’s
incapacity. UPOAA §109(a). If the principal elects to
make the agent’s powers springing, the principal may
designate a specific person to make the determination
of incapacity. However, if no one is named, the determination may be made by a doctor or licensed psychologist, who determines that the principal’s ability
to handle financial matters is impaired. In addition,
a lawyer, judge or appropriate government official
2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1396502
may trigger the agent’s powers by determining that
the principal is missing, detained or unable to return
to the United States. UPOAA §109(c).
UPOAA §109(d) states that a person whom the
principal authorizes to make the determination of
whether the principal is incapacitated may act as his
or her “personal representative” for purposes of the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
so that the agent may obtain the principal’s medical
records and talk with his or her doctors. This innovative provision allows the person charged with the
responsibility of determining whether the springing
event has occurred to obtain information that may be
significant to concluding that the principal actually
is incapacitated.
grants them to the agent; and (2) they are not
prohibited by another agreement or instrument to
which the authority or property is subject—
•to create, amend, revoke or terminate an inter
vivos trust;
•to make a gift;
•to create or change rights of survivorship;
•to create or change a beneficiary designation;
•to delegate the agent’s authority to another
person;
•to waive the principal’s right to be a beneficiary
of a joint and survivor annuity;
•to exercise fiduciary powers that the principal
has authority to delegate; or
•to disclaim property, including a power of
appointment.
Even if the principal is granted express authority
to take these acts, an agent who is not the principal’s
spouse, descendant or ancestor may not exercise the
power to “create in the agent, or in an individual to
whom the agent owes a legal obligation of support,
an interest in the principal’s property, whether by
gift, right of survivorship, beneficiary designation,
disclaimer, or otherwise.” However, the power of
attorney may specially override this prohibition.
UPOAA §201(b). An example from the Comment is instructive: “[A] non-relative agent with
gift making authority could not make a gift to the
agent or a dependant of the agent without the principal’s express authority in the power of attorney. In
contrast, a spouse-agent with express gift-making
authority could implement the principal’s expectation that annual family gifts be continued without
additional authority in the power of attorney.”
MARITAL PROBLEMS BETWEEN
AGENT AND PRINCIPAL
If the agent and principal are married, a significant
number of states provide that the agent’s power terminates upon divorce. Of course, it is unlikely that
the principal would want the agent to have authority,
even before a divorce is final, if the parties are in the
process of a divorce action. In a significant enhancement of prior law, UPOAA §110(b)(3) provides that
the agent’s authority not only automatically terminates upon divorce, but also terminates upon the
commencement of proceedings for legal separation,
marital dissolution or annulment, unless the principal provided otherwise in the power of attorney.4
AGENT’S POWERS
Default powers
Special rules for gifts
The UPOAA contains an extremely comprehensive
list of powers that the principal is presumed to have
granted to the agent; that is, they are automatically
incorporated by reference into the form power of
attorney. UPOAA §§204-217.5 This allows the
power- of-attorney form to be relatively concise, and
yet provides the agent with authority to take virtually
all actions that the principal could take.
Even if a principal has granted the agent the power
to make gifts, that authority is limited unless the
principal specifically trumps the restrictions provided in UPOAA §217. The amount of the gift
is limited to the federal gift tax annual exclusion
amount (or twice that amount if the principal’s
spouse consents to a split gift). The agent may not
make a gift unless the agent determines that the
gift is either: (1) consistent with the principal’s
objectives, which the agent actually knows; or (2)
is consistent with the principal’s best interest after
Powers that must be expressly granted
Under UPOAA §201, the agent will have the following powers only if: (1) the principal expressly
3
agent exercises the power in good faith and without
actual knowledge of the principal’s death.
considering factors such as the value and nature of
the principal’s property; the principal’s foreseeable
obligations and need for maintenance; minimization of income and transfer taxes; eligibility for
governmental assistance (e.g., Medicaid); and the
principal’s history of making gifts.
AUTHORITY OF MULTIPLE AGENTS
Generally, a principal should not name coagents (as
contrasted with successor agents) because of the difficulty of gaining acceptance of the power if only one
of the agents is present. In addition, if the principal
designates an even number of coagents, it raises the
possibility of a deadlock that would require court
involvement.
In recognition of these problems, UPOAA §111
provides that each coagent may exercise his or her
authority independently. If the principal prefers, he
or she may expressly provide that consent of all or
a majority of the coagents is required. Nonetheless,
prudent practice is to have only one agent serving
at a time because, as stated in the Comment, naming coagents “significantly increases the risk that
inconsistent actions will be taken with the principal’s
property” or “that coagents will use the power of
attorney to vie for control of the principal and the
principal’s property.”
Typically, an agent will not be responsible for
a breach of fiduciary duty committed by another
agent unless the agent participated in or concealed
the breach. UPOAA §111(c). Thus, coagents do not
have a duty to monitor each other’s conduct. However, if the agent has actual knowledge of a breach or
imminent breach of fiduciary duty by a coagent, the
agent must notify the principal, and if the principal is
already incapacitated, take whatever action is reasonably appropriate to safeguard the best interests of the
principal. If the agent does not take these actions, the
agent will be liable for any reasonably foreseeable
damages that could have been avoided if the agent
had taken the appropriate steps. UPOAA §111(d).
Ramifications of guardian appointment
A conflict may arise if a court appoints a guardian
of the estate or conservator for a principal who has
a valid power of attorney, if that court-appointed
person is not the agent. Unlike prior Uniform Acts
and the laws of many states, the agent’s authority is
presumed to continue and to trump that of the guardian unless the agent’s authority is limited, suspended
or terminated by a court. UPOAA §108(b). This
approach is more likely to be in accord with the principal’s intent, considering that the principal handpicked the agent but may not have had any input
regarding the person appointed as the guardian.
In most cases, a client should name the same
persons as the agent and successor agents as the client nominates as the client’s guardian and successor
guardians. This permits seamless management of
property because if, for some reason, the court needs
to appoint a guardian, the court already knows the
person whom the client wishes to serve as his or her
guardian. In addition, as the Comment explains, this
technique will discourage “guardianship petitions
filed for the sole purpose of thwarting the agent’s
authority to gain control over a vulnerable principal.” For example, the principal may have appointed
Child A as her agent, and Child A has been doing
an excellent job managing the parent’s property and
spending his or her money in ways that provide her
with a high level of care. Child B, on the other hand,
is upset at the “waste” and wants Child A to stop
spending the anticipated inheritance. If Child B files
for guardianship, Child A has priority, unless Child
B can prove to the court that there is good cause not
to appoint Child A.
STANDARD OF CONDUCT
Nonwaivable duties
The agent is bound by the duties stated in UPOAA
§114(a), regardless of the terms of the power of
attorney or the principal’s intent. These nonwaivable
fiduciary duties include acting: (1) in accordance
with the principal’s reasonable expectations to the
extent that they actually are known to the agent and,
After-death exercise of powers
Usually, an agent’s authority, even under a durable
power of attorney, ends at the moment that the
principal dies. However, UPOAA §110(d) provides
that the agent’s power continues as long as the
4
if not, in accordance with the principal’s best interest; (2) in good faith; and (3) within the scope of
authority granted in the power of attorney.
… are family members who have inherent conflicts
of interest with the principal arising from joint property ownership or inheritance expectations.”
Waivable duties
Exculpatory clauses
UPOAA §114(b) encompasses an extensive list
of the duties to which an agent is normally bound.
These duties include: (1) acting loyally for the principal’s benefit; (2) avoiding conflicts of interest; (3)
acting with ordinary care, competence and diligence;
(4) keeping records and receipts; (5) cooperating
with the principal’s health care agent; and (6) preserving the principal’s estate plan if doing so is in the
principal’s best interest. Unlike the §114(a) duties,
the principal may authorize otherwise and permit,
for example, acts of self-dealing and conflicts of
interest.
The principal may lower the agent’s standard of
care under UPOAA §114. A principal may wish to
do so when appointing a family member or friend
who may lack the skills of a professional property
manager. The principal, however, may not lower
the standard “too far”; that is, regardless of the
exculpatory language the principal uses, the agent
will remain liable for acts taken dishonestly, with an
improper motive, or with reckless indifference to the
purposes of the power of attorney or the principal’s
best interest.
If the principal selects an agent because he or
she has, or represents himself or herself as having,
special skills or expertise, the agent will be bound by
those skills or representations, unless the power of
attorney provides otherwise. UPOAA §114(e).
The principal may exonerate the agent for breaches
of most duties. However, the principal may not
relieve the agent of liability for a breach committed dishonestly, with an improper motive, or with
reckless indifference to the purposes of the power of
attorney or the principal’s best interest. In addition,
an exculpatory clause included because of an abuse
of a confidential or fiduciary relationship with the
principal is unenforceable. UPOAA §115.
Exculpatory clauses should not be routinely
inserted into powers of attorney. However, as the
Comment indicates, “if the principal is concerned
that contentious family members will attack the
agent’s conduct in order to gain control of the principal’s assets, an exoneration provision may deter
such action or minimize the likelihood of success on
the merits.”
COMPENSATION OF AGENT
Unless the principal expressly provides otherwise,
the agent is entitled to reasonable compensation,
as well as reimbursement of expenses that the
agent reasonably incurred on the principal’s behalf.
UPOAA §112. Although family members who serve
as agents often are willing to serve at no charge, the
Comment points out that “payment of compensation
to the agent may be advantageous to the principal in
circumstances where the principal needs to spend
down income or resources to meet qualifications for
public benefits.”
Loyalty duties
At common law a fiduciary, such as an agent, could
not benefit from serving in the fiduciary role, even
if those benefits did not cause a detriment to the
principal. This rule is reversed in UPOAA §114(d),
which states that an agent who acts in the best interest of the principal “is not liable solely because the
agent also benefits from the act or has an individual
or conflicting interest in relation to the property or
affairs of the principal.” The Comment elaborates
that “[t]he public policy which favors best interest
over sole interest as the benchmark for agent loyalty
comports with the practical reality that most agents
REVIEW OF AGENT’S CONDUCT
UPOAA §116(a) provides a laundry list of individuals who have standing to petition the appropriate court to construe a power of attorney and to
review the agent’s conduct. The individuals granted
this authority include: the principal; the agent; the
principal’s guardian or conservator; the principal’s
agent under a medical power or attorney or advance
directive; the principal’s close relatives (spouse, par5
ent, descendant, and presumptive heirs); a person
named as an at-death beneficiary in a contract, trust
or similar nonprobate asset; a governmental agency
with authority to protect the principal’s welfare; the
principal’s caregiver; a person asked to accept the
power of attorney; and anyone who can demonstrate
sufficient interest in the principal’s welfare. If the
principal is competent, the court must dismiss a
petition filed by one of these individuals upon the
principal’s motion. UPOAA §116(b).
If the agent is in breach, the agent is liable to the
principal (or the principal’s successors in interest).
This liability is to: (1) restore the value of principal’s property to what it would have been but for
the breach; and (2) reimburse for attorney’s fees
and costs paid on the agent’s behalf. UPOAA §117.
Note that these remedies are not exclusive, so if the
forum state provides for additional remedies, those
remedies also would be available. UPOAA §123.
whether to: (1) accept the agent’s power or (2)
request (a) the agent’s certification (made under
penalty of perjury) of any factual matter concerning
the principal, the agent or the power of attorney;6 (b)
an English translation of the power if it is not written
in English; and/or (c) a lawyer’s opinion as to any
matter of law concerning the power as long as the
request includes the reason for the request in writing or another record. If the agent makes a request
under the second option, the person must accept the
agent’s authority no later than five business days
after receiving the certification, translation or opinion of counsel. Note that the person may not require
that the principal use an additional or different form.
UPOAA §120(a).
If the person nonetheless refuses to accept the
agent’s authority, the court may order the person to
accept the agent’s authority. In addition, the person is
liable for reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs that
the agent incurs in any action or proceeding taken
to confirm the validity of the power or to force the
person to accept it. UPOAA §120(c).
UPOAA §120(b) enumerates a variety of situations in which the agent’s authority does not need to
be accepted. For example, a third party does not need
to follow the agent’s directions if: the transaction
would be inconsistent with federal law; the person
knows that the agent’s authority already has been
terminated; the person has a good faith belief that the
power is invalid or that the agent lacks the authority
to act, even if the agent supplied a certification, translation or opinion of counsel; or the person has made,
or knows that someone else has made, a report to the
appropriate state agency alleging in good faith that
the principal may be subject to physical or financial
abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment by the
agent or a person acting for or with the agent.
DISHONOR OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
Perhaps the most significant practical problem with
a power of attorney is that the agent cannot force
a third party to accept the agent’s authority. Some
institutions have a reputation of making it difficult
for an agent by flatly refusing to honor a power of
attorney, regardless of how favorably drafted, in
order to protect persons who rely on the agent’s
authority. The UPOAA takes several steps in its
attempt to solve this problem.
First, UPOAA §119 grants protection to parties
who rely in good faith on an acknowledged power
of attorney as long as they are without actual knowledge that the power has been revoked, has been
terminated, is invalid, or that the agent is exceeding
the authority granted by the principal or is exercising
agent’s powers improperly.
Second, UPOAA §120 imposes liability on a person who refuses to accept the agent’s authority under
certain circumstances. This section has two alternatives from which the enacting state may select. The
only difference is that “Alternative A” requires
the acknowledged power of attorney to be in the
statutory form, while “Alternative B” applies to any
power of attorney that is acknowledged properly.
Here is a summary of how this “forced acceptance”
provision operates.
The person has seven business days to decide
PORTABILITY
According to census reports, about one in six Americans moves each year, and the average American
moves almost a dozen times in his or her lifetime.
Accordingly, the drafters of the UPOAA believed
that it was important to make durable powers of
attorney as portable as possible. UPOAA §106 states
that a power of attorney executed in another jurisdiction is valid in the forum state, provided the principal’s execution of that power complied with: (1) the
6
law of the jurisdiction that the principal indicated in
the power by means of either a choice of law provision or by mere reference to a particular jurisdiction;
or (2) if the principal did not state a jurisdiction, the
law of the jurisdiction in which the principal executed the power. UPOAA §107, which provides that
the meaning and effect of the power also is governed
by this other jurisdiction. As the Comment explains,
“the principal’s intended grant of authority will be
neither enlarged nor narrowed by virtue of the agent
using the power in a different jurisdiction.”7
decisions.
Resignation. If the principal still is capable, the
agent merely needs to give notice to the principal
in order to resign. However, if the principal is incapacitated, the agent must notify any guardian or
conservator, as well as a coagent or successor agent.
If none of these persons are available, the agent must
give notice to the principal’s caregiver, a person
with sufficient interest in the principal’s welfare, or
a governmental agency with the authority to protect
the principal’s welfare. UPOAA §118.
OTHER NOTEWORTHY PROVISIONS
GENERAL ADVICE
Agent no longer called “attorney-in-fact.” Nonlawyers are often confused by the term “attorney-in-fact”
and do not realize that the term refers to an agent, not
a lawyer. To reduce this confusion, the UPOAA no
longer uses the term. UPOAA §102(1).
Principal’s lack of management power
called “incapacity.” In recognition that individuals
who are disabled often possess the ability to manage their property and business affairs, the UPOAA
refers to a principal in need of property management
assistance as lacking capacity rather than being disabled. UPOAA §102(5).
No liability to estate beneficiaries for lost gifts.
Many actions of an agent may have an impact on the
disposition of the principal’s property upon his or
her death. For example, assume that the principal’s
will leaves: a house to Child A; $50,000 to Child
B; and the remainder to Child C. Child C is also the
pay-on-death beneficiary on the principal’s bank
account. The decisions that the principal makes
regarding where to obtain funds to pay expenses—
such as mortgaging the house, selling estate property
or making withdrawals from the bank account—will
have an impact on the amounts that each of the children will receive upon the principal’s death. Unless
waived, UPOAA §114(a)(6) requires that the agent
attempt to preserve the principal’s estate plan to the
extent actually known by the agent. UPOAA §114(c)
provides the agent with protection from liability to
the beneficiaries of the principal’s estate, as long as
the agent acts in good faith. It is significant that the
agent does not appear to have the authority to contact
the principal’s attorney and demand to see a copy of
the principal’s will and other estate planning documents so that the agent could make more informed
Selection of agent
Obviously, the agent must be someone in whom the
principal has utmost confidence. There are, however, other considerations. Before naming the agent,
the principal should make certain that the agent is
willing to devote the time and energy necessary to
perform the agent’s duties. The agent and principal
should talk seriously about the principal’s financial
situation and how the principal wants his or her
property handled in the event of incapacity. Not only
should the agent be willing to serve, but the agent
also should be in relatively close physical proximity
to the principal and the property—it is difficult to
live in New York and serve as an agent for someone
in Alaska.
Designation of principal
The designation of the principal in the power of attorney should match how the principal is designated on
other documents relating to property, such as deeds,
certificates of title, and accounts. For example, in
real estate transactions, a title examiner prefers an
exact match of grantee and grantor designations and
may be reluctant to insure if the grantee is “Peggy
Smith” and the grantor is “Margaret Smith Jones.”
CONCLUSION
The UPOAA does an admirable job of modernizing
power of attorney law to reflect legislative trends and
collective best practices. The enhancements should
facilitate the acceptance of durable powers and make
it more difficult for devious individuals to abuse the
7
powers. The Act, however, is not the “end all” of
power of attorney practice, and thus the practitioner
must be vigilant to ascertain the principal’s desires,
consider the applicable law and facts, and then customize the power to meet the client’s needs.
*Gerry Beyer is Governor Preston E. Smith Regents Professor of Law, Texas Tech University School of Law, Lubbock,
Texas. Prof. Beyer holds a J.D. summa cum laude from Ohio
State University and LL.M. and J.S.D. degrees from the
University of Illinois. Previously, Prof. Beyer taught at St.
Mary’s University School of Law and has served as a visiting
professor at several other law schools, including Boston College, La Trobe University (Melbourne, Australia), Southern
Methodist University, the University of New Mexico and
Santa Clara University. He is a frequent contributor to both
scholarly and practice-oriented publications and has authored
and coauthored numerous books and articles in the estate
planning field. Prof. Beyer is also a frequent speaker at continuing legal education programs and is an Academic Fellow
of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel.
FOOTNOTES
1. Pamela Yip, Accident or Illness Could Take a Greater
Financial Toll on Your Family Than Your Death, HOUSTON CHRON., June 3, 1996, at 1B (reproducing
chart supplied by Society of Actuaries).
2. It is of equal, if not greater, importance to have advance
directives (living will, medical power of attorney) in place
so that someone can make health care decisions during periods of incapacity.
3. A comprehensive discussion of all provisions of the
UPOAA is beyond the scope of this Study. For detailed
critiques, two articles prepared by the Act’s Reporter, Professor Linda S. Whitton of the Valparaiso University School
of Law, are recommended highly: Navigating the Uniform
Power of Attorney Act, 3 NAELA J. 1 (2007) and Durable
Powers as an Alternative to Guardianship: Lessons We
Have Learned, 37 STETSON L. REV. 7 (2007).
4. A principal might want the agent’s power to continue
even after the divorce petition has been filed because of
a “catastrophic illness and the need for public benefits.”
Comment to UPOAA §110.
5. The categories of powers incorporated by reference
include those relating to: real property; tangible personal
property; stocks and bonds; commodities and options; banks
and other financial institutions; operation of an entity or
business; insurance and annuities; estates, trusts and other
beneficial interests; claims and litigation; personal and family maintenance; benefits from governmental programs or
civil or military service; retirement plans; taxes; and gifts.
6. A form for this certification is provided in UPOAA §302.
7. For additional information on inter-jurisdictional issues,
see Linda S. Whitton, Crossing State Lines with Durable
Powers, PROB. & PROP., Sept./Oct. 2003, at 28. See also
UPOAA §201(f), which provides that the agent’s authority
is exercisable over property “whether or not the property is
located in this state and whether or not the authority is exercised or the power of attorney is executed in this state.”