Florida Powers of Attorney
Portia B. Scott, J.D., L.L.M. • April 1, 2025

Myths V. Facts

Of the many documents variations of which can be found on the internet, we have Powers of Attorney (“POAs”). As is the old saying, a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous.


With this writing, we are going to explore some of the most prevalent myths about POAs which are, at best, troublesome and, at worst, catastrophic to your plans.


Myth 1: A POA strips from the person who signed it (the Principal) all authority and vests that authority in the person who receives it (the Agent). 


The nightmare I have seen are an Agent waiving the POA around, declaring “I am in charge now,” and “you have to do what I say” regardless of the wishes of the Principal. This is simply untrue. 


A POA will allow another to perform your financial duties. Typically, a POA does not require you to be unable to make informed decisions in order for the POA to be used. The POA duplicates in another person the authority you have over your finances but does not strip from you any of your rights and powers. Now, if you are declared to be incapacitated by a Judge, that would strip you of your authority and the POA could be used to fill in the gaps in your financial care, but the execution by you of a POA does nothing to your own authority.


The POA will be effective even after a Judge, if there were an Incapacity matter filed, says you are incapable of making informed decisions regarding your own finances.


Myth 2: A POA is effective after your death.


It is not. Since a POA duplicates in another person whichever financial authority you chose to give the Agent, and, since when you are dead you cannot do anything, the POA’s usefulness is over. A dead person cannot write checks and neither can his/her Agent using a POA.


In fact, it would might be considered a fraud by the Agent to use the POA after the Principal’s death; it certainly would be void once discovered.


Myth 3: An Agent gets to make the decisions about how the Principal’s money is spent.


Though generally an Agent can spend the Principal’s money, the Agent may only spend the Principal’s money on the things the Principal wants. So, if the Principal wants to send her granddaughter a $100.00 birthday gift and asks the Agent to write her a birthday card with a check in it, that is fine. However, the Agent may not decide to write the check for $1,000.00 nor to include all of the grandchildren. Especially, the Agent may not write herself a check because, she needed the money. If the Agent were to borrow money from the Principal, the Agent should back that up with an I.O.U. (a promissory note) from the Agent to the Principal and keep a record of it.


Certainly, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the Agent cannot change title to a car or house or boat from the Principal to the Agent or ever to the Agent and Principal together without breaching her fiduciary duty to the Principal.


Myth 4: The Agent can give away some of the duties granted under a POA to another person.


The State of Florida specifically prohibits the Agent from delegating the authority under a POA. If the Agent can not do the act authorized, only the Principal can.


These are just some of the common wrong-headed beliefs regarding Powers of Attorney.  These POA can be very useful in many circumstance, but they do not grant “carte blanche” to the Agent. 


Talk to an attorney about the bounds of a POA, especially if you have been appointed and do not understand the limits on your power thereunder.


Share this article

Gloves are Off!

By Portial B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • May 31, 2026
Appellate Gloves Are Off: Warnings Appear to Be Over with Our Courts Over Unverified Artificial Intelligence Arguments and Filings This is the third straight article I have written on this topic - but things keep moving and changing. In my first two articles on this topic (the use of Al in Court filings), I explained that our appellate Court (the "4th") has been issuing warnings about the use of Artificial Intelligence in drafting and filing papers with the Court if the Al is not double-checked against reality. In those articles, I explained that the 4th was giving warning after warning against filing unauthenticated Al-generated motions, petitions, appeals, complaints, briefs, memoranda of law. Now, in three separate rulings on May 27, 2026, the 4th has stopped issuing warnings and has started imposing sanctions and, for attorneys, referrals to the Florida Bar for disciplinary action. In the first case,a self-represented litigant was found to have abused the courts. by filing some 90 Al-generated motions against his former wife. The 4th observed that the arguments made in his appeal to the 4th were not based on actual cases, rules of procedure or, if they were actual cases, such arguments were not found in those cases. As a self-represented litigant, the 4th cannot refer him to the bar for discipline. So, what can the 4th do? They can prohibit him from being able to file any more papers in our courts without having a Florida Bar -licensed attorney sign off on the papers. This is a drastic sanction since access to the Courts is of such high value in America. We want people to have access to the Courts - so they don't settle their disputes at high noon in the middle of the street with firearms or have it out with brawls. The idea behind requiring such sanctions is that an attorney will think twice before endangering their right to practice law. The attorney requirement is expensive, too. Still, when a litigant abuses the courts system, there must be some way to safeguard the integrity of the Court. The idea of an attorney cherishing their rights to practice, however, may not always be 100% accurate. (See below) The second case involved an attorney who filed an "emergency" motion, citing cases which do not stand for the concept of what the attorney claimed. By way of example of what I mean, if the attorney claimed that Roe v. Wade stands for the proposition that income tax is unconstitutional, that would be claiming something that just is not so. Importantly, it is verifiably not so. One need only look at the Roe v. Wade decision to see it is not correct. The 4th said that, whether the case is misrepresented as meaning something it does not or even does not exist at all, it does not matter. Both are equally wrong. The attorney was reported to the Florida Bar for disciplinary inquest. in the third case, an attorney filed a brief which included references to what has happened at trial and quoted from the transcript of the trial. However, since appeals ususally have to have a copy of the transcript included when the appeal is filed (so the 4th can read what actually happened and not just take the filer's word for it), it soon became obvious that what the attorney said had been said in Court was not true. This might have been a result of poor prompting by the attorney to the Al or intentionally misdirecting the Al. It also could be that the transcript of the trial was fed to Al and Al misunderstood what had happened - due to not understanding fully the meaning of certain legal terms. On top of that, Al also "hallucinated" legal authority and the attorney filed it with the 4th, even apparently invoking some of it in oral argument before the 4th, doubling his sins. In the end, how it happened did not matter. The 4th found that the lawyer cited imaginary legal authorities as if they were law and the 4th reported him to the Florida Bar for discipline action, putting his law license in jeopardy.  I want to make it clear: the 4th does not prohibit the use of Al in filings, but everyone must ensure that the citations to legal authority, the statement of the facts and all manner of statements are accurate, real and not the figments of Al's desire to provide a winning argument at the cost of truth.

And furthermore....

By Portia B. Scott, J.D.,L.L.M. • April 2, 2026
Another Warning from our Appellate Court Regarding Al I hate to repeat myself, but.... The March 25, 2026 release of written opinions from our own Fourth District Court of Appeal (4th DCA) has another warning to persons venturing into the Court system. As you may know, I wrote about a warning from the 4th DCA about a self- represented Appellant (person seeking to have the trial court's decision overturned) using Al and the possible, but not inflicted, sanctions which could have resulted. Now, again, in Gouveia v. Meridian Financial Investments, LLC, the 4th DCA has again written to address this increasingly abusive use of Al in the Courts. In this more recent case, there was a contract dispute and the trial court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff (the party making the complaint...get it? "Plaint-iff" based on "Com-Plaint?"). The losing side filed an appeal, asking for the 4th DCA to overturn the decision of the trial court. Well, that went nowhere and the Plaintiff kept its win. The story here is that the person who lost at trial and on appeal, in his case and appeal to the 4th DCA apparently used Al to help write his argument. The Al manufactured ("hallucinated") prior cases which did not exist or, if they did exist, did not stand for what the person said it did. It would be as if the person made reference to Roe v. Wade (a case which does exist) and told the appeals court that it stood for the legal principal that a Jack of Spades has a higher value in poker than the King of Spades (which is absolutely not what Roe v. Wade said). Is that straight-up nonsense? Yes and as absurd as that which was submitted to the appeals court as if it were true. The Court issued another warning about the possibilities of sanctions if it is done again by the person submitting it, just like before. But, as the concurring opinion in this case points out something else (a "concurring opinion" is a written opinion which agrees with the actual opinion but has more to say). The concurring opinion points out how meaningless it is to threaten sanctions against someone who will most likely not be before the Court again. That means that the opportunity to misbehave for this person is greatly reduced. Most self-represented folks only appear once -if at all- before the appellate court. The concurring opinion said that with attorneys, it is not a problem as sanctions will work against us, seeing how we are in court so often. What is the solution? The writer of the concurring opinion doesn't know but suggests some pro-active steps. (Sanctions are, by their very nature, reactive - they are issued in response to something done.) Perhaps forcing sworn statements from the parties that they have not used Al or, if they have, exactly what the Al included; that the party submitting the Al- generated document has double-checked the sources. Something which can help us all work with the rising tide of Al, Chatbots, LLM tools.  Stay tuned!